I've been of for the hollydays, so now some comments. I'd still favour a XML defined markup for this. Someone (John ?) said cutting edge .. why ? XML itself is nothing, it's only aset of rules to describe markup languages. In fact, XML is just a simplified (and bastardised) SGML, posibly to promote the idea. Nobody has to know anything about XML (although it helps) to use one of these Languages. Like one can do well formed HTML without knowing about XML, a Data Image Markup Language can be used without XML - But defining it in XML will give a huge advantage in tool usage. There are plenty of libraries and tool collections to handle markup languages with a XML based definition. These tools are to help development and not restrict. There is no need to build a XML parser for an Apple ][ or a TRS (Or a CoCo - Hi Bill:), unless someone likes to. The target systems don't need any knowledge about XML either - they need to dechipher the markup language. Read: they have to know that <TRACK LFD=0> identifies the start of the description of track zero of said disk. Of course the usage of a parser framework may reduce programming, but there's no _must_ to do so. The same is true for a system writing an image file - it doesn't need to know XML - if the programm produces a well formed output (and that's a basic must for every format) all will work fine. XML changes nothing at first - like any other general standard. The benefit is in the long term when people are able to build advanced tools based on this standards without knowing about every specific single usage - My most favoured example is still the ordinary screw and bolt. Standardizeing this simple thing has allowed toolmakers to produce a wide variety of tools handeling them , from simple manual wrenches over prneumatic or electric to 100% robotic devices ... and these tools work (almost) in every situation ... we don't need a special wrench for Atari screws or Commodore ... Of course I prefer the metric screw system, but when looking closer it could be different, maybe better in some aspects for different situations ... but that's no real issue, the fact of having one system offers more benefit than anything else. BTW: Did I already mention that I _personaly_ think XML is a poor design ? And If I sound like a old XML freak, I'm not, until some 8 Month ago I did ignore XML (and I did even fight it), then I had to define some markup and tried XML ... no big deal (exept the real crapy standard document) - and an instant gain thru independant structure checking and problem reporting, without writing my own tools to check everything. Well, back to our theme: Pete, I realy agree to your idea about a sensible editor, just we are living in a real world, where real software is to be used. And since this is supposed to be an open standard, a sensible editior can't be assumed... Even if we would try, I doubt that such a thing is available on every obscure home computer system. Even chances for a simple text editor can be bad. So including binary as default is a bad idea - I would even go further and restrict all markup specific parts for only using the characters A-Z, 0-9 and some well defined (read only the absolute necersary minimum) characters. Remember, not every Computer system offers lower case or ASCII at all (This is also the reason why my definition did only include uper case tags, while XML encurages lower case). I can't stretch this fact far enough: Don't assume that binary data transfer is possible between two systems - as soon as you do, you will exclude possible usages. A format to be choosen shouls at least allow to transport the neto data in non binary form - a better way would be to allow different encodings, so _neutral_ converters may change the data representation without interpreting the content. Example: to save disk space data chunks (sektors) are stored binary - but since the encoding is just another parameter of the data tag, it may be convertetd to a base64 encoding _without_ interpreting the content other than converting the encoding. This may be done by a third party tool (remember about the advantages of standards for tool variety?) After all, we are talking about puting _yesterdays_ data on _todays_ storage (and not the other way around). Let'S just assume we would need three times - oh, well lets say four times the space to encode so an Apple Disk will need a whooping 600 kb ... Boy, we are talking about 2000s storage, thats the year then 40 gig drives droped below 250 USD including taxes. The equivalent of 10 Gig markup coded data, or about 70,000 Apple disks (143 k each). Somehow I doubt that someone will ever collect that amount. And even Windows is now able to compress data on the fly. This may reduce it close to the original size, maybe even less (in our example we store now something like a quater million of disks on one 250 Dollar IDE drive...) As far as I see this call, it's to define a format for more than just a specific system or format - so reducing it to a hard coded thing with just a few numbers would turn away most possible usage. Even further, restricting it to floppy disk like structures would render it non usable. Of course I may describe a CBM disk written on a 4040 drive - but what about the same data stored on tape drives ? Also, looking on Sallams definition even some floppy structures are excluded - where is variable speed, where are possible tracks of more than 64k, and how to encode spiral tracks (no, I'm not talking about Apple copy protection schemes, but rather flopy drives writing only one big track, like on a CD - In fact, medias like these micro drives (as used by some sharp machines) are in more danger than some Apple disk ... you still get enough drives and disks to replicate them. The same is true for other once common medias, which fall in similar categories. just remember the Sinclair micro drives. Maybe never common in the US, but for shure on the Island and within Europe. Defining only a standard for FD data means closing the eyes about all the fast fading data storage history. One may define one ore maybe two standars, but soon you'll loose - and the forgotten medias will loose. If there'S some effort to invest, it should be spend on a standard to cover as many as possible medias, and it should be extensible to add missing medias on the fly. A format to be choosen should be able of the 10 following things (with no special order): - Be able to handle all kinds of stuff from Card Storages and paper tapes, over real tapes and audio cassettes, spiral floppies and micro drives to FDs, HDs and CDs... and what ever is coming (althoug I belive that the number of new concepts is shrinking). - Define an abstract view (like tracks and sectors) - Allow the addition of physical descriptions when needed - (Possibly) Allow the definition of 'hardwaredependant' structures (ALthough this now crosses into the path of emulator definitions) - Expandable in several ways (including content encoding) - Transportable between machines, codes and OSes - Allow robust encoding - Able to be integrated into other definitions (like being integrated in a storage situation description) - simple encodable / simple decodable - Allow the encoding of multiple media within a single transfer unit (aka file). (Especialy nuber 8 and 10 is important when going to do more than just storing a disk image) I still think a XML based markup language is a good choice. I would suggest a multiple level design: - Level one is a language to describe the logical content of a media. - Level two would define 'physical' descriptions, like disk encoding etc. - Level three defines a storage landscape In the end these 3 levels should be interoperating. For example: One would encode the logical content of a disk using the Level 1 tags. A top level tag (like 'MEDIA' may include a reference to a Level 2 description telling that the disk is MFM encoded but Track 0 side 0 is FM. This will be good for 99,99% of all encoded data disks - but for special situations, like a copy protection scheme, where track 17 is also FM the reevant tags will cary override informations to tell the difference. Level 3 may be used to define a situation where a computer has 4 disk drives and tells which media (disks) are mounted in which drive. Or define a set of medias belonging to one situation (like puting all 23 OS/2 2.0 disks into one image). Anyway, I'm geting tired ... Gruss H. P.S.: still nobody to decode my disk example ? -- VCF Europa 2.0 am 28./29. April 2001 in Muenchen http://www.vintage.org/vcfe http://www.homecomputer.de/vcfe