🚀 go-pugleaf

[The bottom line of this message (for those who don't want to process this
text sequentially) is that information should not be distributed on the net
in a format that is not publically documented.]

In article <6848@drutx.ATT.COM>, clive@drutx.ATT.COM (Clive Steward) writes:
> Well, I seem to remember Bob Webber being the person who went to
> the trouble to port the appropriate FidoNet to form the net.handicapped 
> newsgroup.  Makes me wish to see through the (does it have to be so usual)
> net.invective on both sides here.

Nope.  Someone else gets credit for the port.  However, since chuq and
I have been bumping into each other for over a year on the net, doubtless
we are both evolving discussion contexts that aren't shared with many
readers.

> ...
> If you feel strongly about this, Bob, how about writing a prototype of
> a practical compatibility processing system.  It would be interesting, 
> I think.  And certainly a very constructive move for the philosophies 
> you're espousing.

True.  Except for two things.  One: I am working on an alternative
more open system that will be evolving in alt.hypertext.  Two: I prefer
not to work in the restrictive environment of a Mac (its alot easier
to prototype on a system where you can flip back and forth between
shell scripts, awk, common lisp, C, and run GNU Emacs).  

> Two shareware ($10) programs might help. Scriptware Detective converts
> scripts to readible objects, hexified where text won't work.  Script
> Report is a stack which extracts the scripts out of any stack.

Both of these would indeed be useful (since I so far have seen no
documentation on the hypertext binary format -- indeed recall rumours
of it being proprietary).  However, as mentioned above, I am really
not interested in being Mac-bound.  As soon as there is a way of getting
the data in a readable format, I will be happy to write whatever conversions
are necessary to make the data useable off a Mac.

> Further, let's consider the information that's linked.  Yes, there are
> others writing image compression algorithms, but Bill Atkinson's not
> exactly a slouch. 

I have heard only good things about his programming.  However, the Mac
has been haunted by resolution dependent graphics for quite some time
and the observation that this is not a good design decission is not
unique to me.  It is understandable that some things would be implemented
that way simply because it is easier and the system is already getting
too messy.  But it is ironic that a system that organizes data in such
a fexible way uses such a flat representation for the image data of a
given card (doubtless one thing encouraging people to use foreign code
to generate imagery).  Also, for anything other than raw scanned data,
object-oriented representations will be much more compact.

> So maybe we should concentrate on building conversion programs, if
> it's accepted that Usenet should be used at all for transferring such
> high-context information.
> 
> Is that, perhaps, the real question of the debate?  If so, let's say so.

While I disagree that conversion programs are the only way to produce
stacks that are usable on non-Mac systems, clearly they would make it
easier to create such stacks.  The problem is that the person who writes
such a conversion program would have to have sufficient knowledge and
access to the Mac as to not need such a program.

> And perhaps commercial bbs's are exactly the right place for the 
> idiosyncratic nature of many of the stacks I have seen.  It's a lot of info, 
> and costs to send.
> 
> If so, let's say so.

Personally, I think that once someone has gone to the trouble of organizing
a significant body of knowledge in a stack and is willing to make it freely
available, it should be distributed as maximally as possible.  It
should not be distributed in a publically undocumented format anymore than
the net should be used for passing around DES encrypted versions of unix
source.

------- BOB (webber@athos.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!athos.rutgers.edu!webber)