Let's develop an open-source media archive standard

From: Cini, Richard <RCini_at_congressfinancial.com>
Date: Wed Aug 11 09:37:42 2004


        I tend to forget about the Motorola format (call me an Intel snob).
The 16mb would be enough for many systems, and I would hope that 4gb would
be enough, at least for now, to represent the largest of the media types we
want to represent.


-----Original Message-----
From: cctalk-bounces_at_classiccmp.org
[mailto:cctalk-bounces_at_classiccmp.org]On Behalf Of David V. Corbin
Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2004 10:34 AM
To: 'General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts'
Subject: RE: Let's develop an open-source media archive standard

You might want to consider Motorola rather than Intel.
The only reason I suggest this is the motorola format alread has a (semi)
extensible record type description [the second char of each line].

S2 and S3 are already defined for 16MB and 4GB memory spaces...

A (non-standard) record type "could" be used for media format, etc...

Just my 16.3875 milli-EUR comment...

>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: cctalk-bounces_at_classiccmp.org
>>> [mailto:cctalk-bounces_at_classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Cini, Richard
>>> Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2004 10:02 AM
>>> To: 'General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts'
>>> Subject: RE: Let's develop an open-source media archive standard
>>> I haven't read the entire thread on this but I did read
>>> Steve Thatcher's idea and it describes about where I was
>>> coming out on this myself.
>>> I might have missed what the ultimate use of this archive
>>> would be. Will the archive be used to (1) re-generate
>>> original media; (2) operate with emualtors; (3) both?
>>> To ensure integrity of the data I would propose recording
>>> the data in the Intel Hex format -- it's text-based and has
>>> built-in CRC. Now, we'd have to modify the standard format
>>> a bit to accommodate a larger address space and to add some
>>> sort of standardized header (a "Hardware Descriptor"). This
>>> data would be used by the de-archiver to interpret the
>>> stream of data read from the data area (the "Hex Block").
>>> I agree that a multi-layer approach offers the best
>>> combination of platform neutrality and portability. I don't
>>> really know if we need two or three layers as Steve
>>> described to describe the file in a standard fashion. Using
>>> an Intel Hex-like format would increase the "de-archiving"
>>> time, but in my view it's a fair trade-off. De-archiving
>>> software could translate the platform-neutral file into
>>> another format better suited for use in emulators.
>>> I think that we should start compiling a list of the
>>> various media we want represented and how that media is
>>> organized natively. I don't mean "well, it has blocks and
>>> sectors" either. We should examine the exact format down to
>>> the actual numbers (i.e., "2048 blocks of 256-bytes
>>> recorded twice"). Seeing how the various data stores are
>>> organized should bring some clarity to how we should represent it.
>>> Just my $0.02.
>>> Rich
Received on Wed Aug 11 2004 - 09:37:42 BST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Oct 10 2014 - 23:36:33 BST