guestx wrote>"Microsoft's? Showing your bias again, AMS!
Nah probably a bad case of cynicism on my part (what with Mt Rainier being in Washington State not that far from Seattle - and home of you know who....).
Steffen wrote>"I stopped worrying about UDF when the 1.50 spec came out which was incredibly complex "
Agreed. But here's the thing, UDF is really only needed if you *want* your disk to be readable directly on any other machine. But for *our* purposes might it be sufficient to use a *different* (less obstuse) filesystem (e.g., son of filecore or the like). Yes it might mean the thing can't be directly read on anything else - but either we can (a). Provide a means to convert it to "vanilla" ISO-9660 with Joillet extensions so others can read it or (b). Make the filesystem specification *publically* available (or even the source if one is in a "giving" mood) and that would mean others could accept and read disks from us.