Timeline for Is there a MIME type for C64 .PRG files?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
21 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 7, 2021 at 7:34 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc with https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc
|
|
| Feb 12, 2018 at 22:38 | comment | added | Tommy | @Raffzahn speaking as one of those that has at any time implemented support for TZX, I agree but hate myself for doing so. | |
| Feb 12, 2018 at 22:06 | comment | added | Raffzahn | @Tommy Oh, I think I got it already first time. Maybe I should rephrase my point as a sequence of steps. Identifiers are arbitary and can be any sequence of letters as long as they are unique. If there is none arround, I'd define a good one. But as soon as there is a single application using an existing identifier for my data, no matter how stupid named, I'll accept it. Now I'd only go ahead and check if there are maybe others and if yes, which one seams to have a promising followship. I will always put compatibility over my need for a nice identifier - even above a better data format. | |
| Feb 12, 2018 at 21:29 | comment | added | Tommy |
@Raffzahn sorry, I'm obviously expressing myself poorly. Alas, not for the first time. That final sentence is meant to say: if going out and looking suggests that the question isn't actually settled — if there are enough instances of application/x-cbm-prg or whatever that anything c64 isn't standard enough that doing so would affect compatibility — then I'd tend away from c64 for failing correctly to describe the thing being transmitted and thereby failing the only purpose of a MIME type. Impliedly: if the matter is already settled, then so be it. The provincials have won.
|
|
| Feb 12, 2018 at 21:23 | comment | added | Raffzahn | @Tommy From all of my heart, yes,I do. Just logic tells me that it's better to yuse a crapy ID because it is already in use by others than inventing a better one. Compatibility is what we want. Invisible beauty comes second (or even less) :( | |
| Feb 12, 2018 at 21:09 | comment | added | Tommy | @Raffzahn hence "If research suggests MIME types still aren't codified...". So, yes, you're agreeing with me. | |
| Feb 12, 2018 at 21:07 | comment | added | Raffzahn | @Tommy Yes, there might be many reasons to use different identifyers. And using a certain machien name for generic formats sounds wrong. But it might be good to remember that mime-types don't need to make sense. their primary reason is to act as unique identifyier for a specific data format. Therefore it might be wise to use an existing identifiyer to improve compatibility, instead of inventing another one out of dogmatic reason and increase incompatibility. Don't you think so? | |
| Feb 12, 2018 at 16:38 | comment | added | Tommy |
cbm makes much more sense than c64: a PRG is a capture of a file, not a piece of media, and Commodore used the same layout for files across its 8-bit line. PET software is often found as PRGs. Vic-20 software is often found as PRGs (confusingly including cartridges, which tend to have been captured by saving as a file). C16+4 software is often found as PRGs. Etc. Ditto D64 and G64 are floppy images which may contain software for any Commodore GCR platform. Nothing about most of those files strictly implies the C64. If research suggests MIME types still aren't codified, I'd avoid c64.
|
|
| Feb 12, 2018 at 16:23 | history | edited | Raffzahn | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 5 characters in body
|
| S Feb 12, 2018 at 15:49 | history | suggested | manassehkatz-Moving 2 Codidact | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Typos/spelling/grammar
|
| Feb 12, 2018 at 15:44 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Feb 12, 2018 at 15:49 | |||||
| Feb 12, 2018 at 8:06 | history | edited | Raffzahn | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 1 character in body
|
| Feb 11, 2018 at 22:47 | history | edited | Raffzahn | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 384 characters in body
|
| Feb 11, 2018 at 22:40 | comment | added | Raffzahn | RFC6838 is 'just' a best practice recomendation, not a standard like 2045/46. Ofc, you're always free to go thru the IANA registration procedure to make up a new standard type. Personally I'd rather spend the time with the project and use established standards. the way they are made. | |
| Feb 11, 2018 at 22:31 | history | edited | Raffzahn | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 241 characters in body
|
| Feb 11, 2018 at 22:28 | comment | added | Tom Seddon |
After figuring out the right Google search syntax: c64emulator.111mb.de/… mentions application/x-c64-program. Good enough for me, and I'll just put up with the x- prefix.
|
|
| Feb 11, 2018 at 22:27 | vote | accept | Tom Seddon | ||
| Feb 11, 2018 at 22:24 | history | edited | Raffzahn | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 241 characters in body
|
| Feb 11, 2018 at 22:22 | comment | added | Tom Seddon |
Thanks. Which applications support this? (Also note that x- is deprecated and types with the x- prefix are no longer part of the unregistered tree!)
|
|
| Feb 11, 2018 at 22:22 | history | edited | Raffzahn | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 241 characters in body
|
| Feb 11, 2018 at 22:13 | history | answered | Raffzahn | CC BY-SA 3.0 |