On 3/13/98 at 10:59 AM -0600, Ned Freed wrote:
I don't see the compatibility problem because it seems to me any compliant
display must deal with arbitrary length because we've never specified a
length -- unless we decide that 80 columns was implied all along or such.
That's OK, but lets be up front about it.
I disagree with your assessment that this is the nature of compliant
diplays. As such, I disagree that this requirement can be dropped.
Are you saying that a compliant display is only one that chops off lines
that are greater than it's maximum screen real estate if it is less than 80
columns? I thought you denied that some time ago.
I don't recall saying any such thing. A display that chops off lines is
compliant as far as I can tell. Suboptimal, perhaps, but compliant. If I said
otherwise I was mistaken.
(This, BTW, is what I meant when I said wrap=yes is "too easy" in and of
itself. I knew this that this requirement would need to be added and I knew
the folks at Qualcomm would object to it.)
Unless I misunderstand what you are saying, I don't object to wrap=yes nor
the requirement that senders must be able to generate short lines. What do
you think I'm objecting to?
It was my understanding that you objected to the requirement that agents
generating wrap=yes also be able to generate wrap=no, or at least questioned
the need for it. If that's not the case then we are basically in agreement
and can proceed with the wrap parameter and a requirement that it be possible
to generate wrap=no material.
Ned