This message is from the T13 list server.
Offline I'm told I didn't clearly express that here I'm using the term "dead" as shorthand for "dead letter" which http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary defines as: Main Entry: dead letter ... Date: 1663 1 : something that has lost its force or authority without being formally abolished Of course Ansi is alive & well & essential at the digital scope level ... I'm saying it is less so at the bus analyser level, particularly in comparison to the ongoing Sff effort. I'm not saying the Ansi texts now are any more fictional than they have ever been, I am saying that a push to "just implement the free final draft Ansi .pdf download" will perceptibly fall short of making devices as compatible with Apple Mac, Linux, etc. as they are with Microsoft Windows. The problem is that no one device vendor controls enough of the market to clean it up. Intel doesn't have the monopoly that Microsoft does. As a device designer, no matter how committed my colleagues are to implementing Ansi fully & accurately, I can't rely on my own bridges being present - not the software that control the Intel-and-lookalikes Pci/Ide bridge, not the hardware bridges in devices that I buy from third parties. x4402 Pat LaVarre [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.aol.com/plscsi/ >>> Pat LaVarre 04/11/02 01:29PM >>> This message is from the T13 list server. > > > > > Hale Landis 04/11/02 08:27AM > > > > > I don't want to start that whole discussion ... but x4402 Pat LaVarre [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.aol.com/plscsi/ >>> Andre Hedrick 04/11/02 12:18PM >>> > SFF-8020 is a dead/retired document, and this is the root cause of > communication clashing. Could you move to a more modern document, and if > none exists, create one and sumbit it. I'm told, outside of the English-speaking community, Ansi is more dead than Sff. I think the root cause of the clash here is a protocol that only mostly works, not the fact that Sff 8020i covered a different subset of realities than Ansi does.
