Re: Why I think we should tolerate compatibility with PRA.
2004-10-04 16:40:58
I'm not going to recite my point-by-point analysis of Meng's post on
this topic. I will also spare us the endless quotation and rebuttal, in
favor of original material. I'll simply say that I find Meng's post
reasonable, and the direction described is acceptable to me and to the
organizations and people I represent. There may need to be technical or
editorial sprucing up; I'm sure any such changes are well in hand with
such a particular group of people. I support an extensible standard that
can be grown into as well as expanded. Attempting to exclude a
particular implementor and/or implementation a priori is problematic.
Bryce Ryan
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- Re: Why I think we should tolerate compatibility with PRA., (continued)
- Re: Why I think we should tolerate compatibility with PRA., Jim Hill
- RE: Why I think we should tolerate compatibility with PRA., John Glube
- Why I think we should tolerate compatibility with PRA., Roger Moser
- RE: Why I think we should tolerate compatibility with PRA., John Glube
- Re: Why I think we should tolerate compatibility with PRA., Greg Connor
- Re: Why I think we should tolerate compatibility with PRA., jpinkerton
- Re: Why I think we should tolerate compatibility with PRA., Frank Ellermann
- Re: Why I think we should tolerate compatibility with PRA., william(at)elan.net
- Re: Why I think we should tolerate compatibility with PRA.,
spf <=
- Re: Why I think we should tolerate compatibility with PRA., Michael Hammer
|
|
|