Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!uwvax!oddjob!gargoyle!ihnp4!homxb!whuts!tes
From: tes@whuts.UUCP (STERKEL)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: PKARC 3.5 -g option
Message-ID: <2430@whuts.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 16-Jul-87 19:36:05 EDT
Article-I.D.: whuts.2430
Posted: Thu Jul 16 19:36:05 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 18-Jul-87 10:16:26 EDT
References: <23599@sun.uucp>
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 17
Summary: but did SEA use the same extension format?

In article <23599@sun.uucp>, dbercel@sun.uucp (Danielle Bercel, MIS Systems Programming) writes:
> Since we are all talking about compatibility between
> PKARC and ARC,......
> There have been a few messages about how horrible it
> is for a new method to be introduced that is not
> compatible with existing compression methods. I would
> like to point out that when ARC was first introduced
> it replaced a number of existing programs (nusq, usq, lupc,
> etc.), and was incompatible with them.

BUT, did SEA blithely declare compatibility, and *KEEP THE SAME
EXTENSION* (.ARC), even in the face of obvious user confusion
and angst?
-- 
                         Terry Sterkel
        {clyde|harvard|cbosgd|allegra|ulysses|ihnp4}!whuts!tes
              [opinions are obviously only my own]