"matthew green" <mrg@eterna.com.au> writes:
> actually, could we rename it isofs?  as others have meantioned, and
> the above quoted material shows, it is easy to typo `9660.'

the rationalte for isofs/cd9660 was "iso file systems, cd file system,
standard 9660."

while i think it's bogus to put that extra level of gunk in there, i
don't see that "iso file system standard 9660" is an unreasonable
thing to represent in the name.


a quick search of the IEEE standards catalogue indicates that 7665,
9293, 13346, and 13490 might be relevant, but i dunno for sure.


cgd