I thought it would be good with a list of blorb-names so we know which ones are used by which development system. Especially as new systems might want to use blorb-files too, and it would be convienient if they all had different names.
I am not an expert but will update this list in this first post whenever someone wants me to correct it.
I am also aware, that to some extend, the practical use is a little against the original intention but the original specification could quickly be updated if anyone thinks that is a problem.
EDIT: List modified and and split into “known use” and “intended use” following Angstsmurf’s and Zarf’s input.
Known use of blorb file suffixes .zblorb / .zlb: Only z-machine games .gblorb / .glb: Only Glulxe games .blb / .BLB: Generic use such as Infocom games, early inform games or pure media .blorb: So far only ADRIFT 5 games and JACL games
Intended use of blorb file suffixes .zblorb / .zlb: Only z-machine games .gblorb / .glb: Only Glulxe games .blorb / .blb / .BLB: Generic use such as Infocom games, early inform games or pure media
Last time I tried to search the internet for the “.blorb” extension, I could only find it used for ADRIFT games. I have never seen an uploaded .blorb-file that wasn’t an ADRIFT game. I thus propose to adapt this extension for ADRIFT and recommend new tools to call them something else, such as .tblorb for TADS etc.
Would that be possible?
I know that the person behind ADRIFT could just have called it .ablorb or something (though it might be intended for ALAN perhaps?) but Campbell Wild behind ADRIFT has been working for free on ADRIFT for 20 years and is now very busy so we can’t expect him to change that and that would also be a problem for all the games that were published as .blorb-files. Changing this would just cause more confusion I think.
There are a number of .blb and .blorb files out there that don’t contain any game at all, but just sounds or pictures and other resources. Usually these are meant to be used in combination with original game files, as a (dubious) way to avoid copyright infringement. An example is the .blb files in the IF archive which provide sounds for Sherlock: The Riddle of the Crown Jewels and The Lurking Horror.
Thanks!
I wasn’t aware of JACL games. However, there are only four JACL games on ifdb and the latest one is from 2009 so I don’t think it will ruin my proposal unless there are more “hidden” .blorb-files out there(?)
Anyway, I will update the first post and mention the jacl files.
.blorb and .blb were always meant to be generic suffixes – they could contain any type of game file, or (as noted) none. I don’t think it’s a good idea to change that assumption at this late date.
Thanks, I guess that makes sense, considering that there may be others who have used .blorb besides the ADRIFT and JACL games, we just haven’t found them yet. Due to the many tools starting with A, one of the early specifications proposed either .adriftblorb or .blorb. I think that .adriftblorb is too impractical so I understand that Campbell went with .blorb. I don’t think it is a big problem if we just encourage new tools to increase the suffix to e.g. .tblorb for twine blorbs (bad example, I know )
I think I will make two lists: intended use and known use.
There are at least 7 JACL games. Of those, The Bloody Guns, The Down Dragon, The Unholy Grail (all by Stuart Allen) and Le Roi de Fihnargaia (by Eric Forgeot) use blorb files. These contain resources only, no game file. The game is stored in the j2 file.
Adrift 5 is the only other authoring system I could find that uses the blorb format.
Contrary to what @Dannii said, the file formats used by the various file extensions may be the same, but they must use the accepted file extensions if you want to associate the file type with an interpreter so that you can double-click a blorb, gblorb or zblorb file and automatically run it in the correct interpreter. Failure to do so can lead to untold frustration.
Also, ADRIFT 3.8 and 3.9 games won’t run in the ADRIFT 4 interpreter, so they may need to be treated differently in Gargoyle. I believe they can be converted to 4.0, but that’s a step outside the scope of the interpreter.
No, I haven’t. I always use the native interpreters. If ADRIFT 3.8 and 3.9 games already work in Gargoyle, then it’s not an issue and you can forget I mentioned it.
EDIT: I just loaded an ADRIFT 3.8 game in an old version of Gargoyle and it seems to load fine. In fact, I prefer this UI to the Adrift Runner UI.
)