Andrew McIntyre wrote:
> code sets that have been specified. Its the quality of implementation > and not the standard. The labs have the ability to produce compliant > messages, but given the current business model its the market that > gives them the will to do it. Agree with these points but would add that the standard is not as well-drafted as it could be and has multiple points of 'interpretion' where the programmer can do X or Y and still be within the standard. This is probably inevitable given the standard is a 'blue-sky' document: it's not referring to a real implementation Again, as many others have, I make the call for a reference implementation Ian _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
