Subject: Re: cd9660 bugs?
To: None <>
From: Wolfgang Solfrank <>
List: current-users
Date: 07/11/1996 19:48:07
>  Yep, sure. But it should at least take regard to new versions as well. 
> At first it should use the most recent version of the standard, then
> it might fall back to an older version. This can - if my reading of
> the source is correct - easily be achieved: Instead of only seeking the - 
> obsolete - RRIP Flag "RR", it should seek for _all_ existing fields. This
> must work even if "RR" is not present.

Note that the code in the tree DOES look "for _all_ existing fields".
The RR field was always optional, and the code only uses it to short circuit
the search for other fields if it actually _finds_ an RR field indicating that
fields currently searched for are not there.

Anyway, I'm already discussing this with Markus privately (and there IS a
problem with CDs that conform to the newer specification, albeit not with the
RR field).
ws@TooLs.DE     (Wolfgang Solfrank, TooLs GmbH) 	+49-228-985800