on 1/16/01 5:56 AM, "James Cook" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jon, I think you should re-read what constitutes a functional requirements > document. What James is writing is certainly *not* such a beast. It is simply > documenting how his proposal works. Closer to a design document. > > James has already stated that he doesn't want to waste time with a > requirements > document. > > jim Ok then. I apologize. Point being that I did suggest to James to write one...obviously I didn't read through what he wrote well enough to comment one way or another correctly. :-( Sorry about that, I guess that my assumptions were wrong. -jon
