Paul Gilmartin wrote: >Yes, but zFS is too specific, and at risk of change.
Change cuts both/all ways. There's now at least one base z/OS component that uses zFS nontrivially (and requires it) that isn't z/OS UNIX System Services. How about something like this: "...a zFS or other z/OS UNIX compatible directory/file/path..."? That'd allow for z/OS NFS, HFS (for now, in z/OS releases that provide it), etc. if those are acceptable alternatives. "z/OS UNIX" seems to be an acceptable short form of "z/OS UNIX System Services," so I think that works. If for some reason the requirement is specific to zFS, then it'd just collapse to "a zFS directory/file/path." Here's another form, in between those two poles: "...a z/OS UNIX compatible directory/file/path (zFS recommended)..." Technical writing with clarity is hard, but I think these constructions would be an improvement. - - - - - - - - - - Timothy Sipples I.T. Architect Executive Digital Asset & Other Industry Solutions IBM Z & LinuxONE - - - - - - - - - - E-Mail: sipp...@sg.ibm.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
