On Jun 26, 2005, at 11:17 AM, Stephen Jonke wrote: > > On Sunday, June 26, 2005, at 02:36AM, Scott J. Kramer <x- > unix at sjk.us> wrote: > >> Sorry if I missed your reason earlier, but I'm curious why you're >> using >> zip instead of tar on 10.4 if you want to preserve resource forks. >> > > The files to be compressed/archived are sometimes intended for > Windows users too, and end up on a web server (obviously they don't > get use of the resource fork if any, but with the Panther/ > Tiger .zip format the rest is intact for them.) Is it typical for a > web server to handle tar files correctly? Can PC users decompress > them without add-on software? How does it handle resource forks for > non-Mac users? I had presumed tar wasn't an option, but hadn't > really looked into it in depth. > > Steve Most recent implementations of compression/decompression utilities include support for the tar format. Keep in mind that tar has been around for a lot longer than the zip format. I know that Windows can handle tar files alright, but I'm not sure what happens with the resource forks on Windows systems. Web servers handle the tar format correctly, although I believe there used to be some configuration option that needed to be set for earlier versions of Apache. I hope this helps a little. On a side note, most people will use tar, and further compress using gzip, or another zip format. _______________________________________________________ Eric F Crist "I am so smart, S.M.R.T!" Secure Computing Networks -Homer J Simpson