Re: PakFiles

[s369625@student.uq.edu.au]

On Tue, 22 Sep 1998, Christian Reiniger wrote:
>s369625@student.uq.edu.au wrote:
>
>>>>1) The current PakFile format contains some redundant information, e.g.
>[...]
>>>>features for the contained files). Is it ok to remove that redundancy?
>
>>>Hmm, I would have been more woried about the complexities of variable
>>>sized data like filenames, but for whatever reason, I see no reason for
>
>Hmmm, I think variable sized filenames are the best way. They are only read
Agreed, I was just thinking that it would be simpler not to store a variable
sized datum like a filename unecassarily.

>
>Apropos "char" - just a weird idea popping up: How useful is Unicode
>support for Filenames? Perhaps a Feature for Version 2?
I suppose you should go for it right now, just use wchar_t (thats what it
is called isn't it?) and pretend it is ascii.

>
>>>>allow for both compress-then-encrypt and encrypt-then-compress. I think an
>>>>additional "compressed-first" flag is appropriate for this. Comments?
>>>Ok, but I would have thought compressing encrypted data would do shitall.
>
>I thought the same, but apparently there are some such algos...
Oh.  OK.