Hi,
>>"Raul" == Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Raul> What I'm envisioning is that you'd take what the standard has
Raul> to say about, for example, the implemented language, leave that
Raul> as quoted text and flesh it out with notes about implementation
Raul> dependent choices and such. Then you'd toss the more verbose
Raul> stuff and replace it with something that doesn't need to cover
Raul> all possibilities.
You do this, then it is no longer a standard, it is the
documentation of a particular program.
Raul> What you seem to be envisioning is that there's no reason to believe
Raul> that it's worthwhile to our community for a standard to do this.
Yes. You hack and maul a standard enough to describe your
program, then it is your programs docs -- and in no way reflects
either the standard or my program that also imlpements the
standard. Or Freds implementation. Or ...
Raul> Anyways, what I'm proposing is that such works should go into
Raul> a new section -- one which could be put on cdrom, but whose labeling
Raul> indicates that they don't meet the same guidelines as main. I'm
Raul> not sure what to best call it -- perhaps "verbatim".
Yes. Things i main are those that meet the DFSG. Things in
verbatim don't, but they still have to meet the requirements of DFDG
(no discrimination, freely dostributable, etc, etc)
manoj
--
How many hardware guys does it take to change a light bulb? "Well
the diagnostics say it's fine buddy, so it's a software problem."
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
