No, I don't think I typo'ed anything. I was discussing in terms of
LPIC-2, since that is what I thought we started with.
To me, it would seem that the test level should supersede the version
number, since I would think that it would be more important, and that I
would leave the minor version numbers out of it. Since it would be nice
to state the full version info somewhere, I suggested that you do that
in the title or header. I don't feel it needs to be re-stated in every
objective.
So, for the LPIC-1 titles in question:
Topic 1201: System Architecture
* 1201.1 Determine and configure hardware settings
Regards
Paul King
On Fri, 2008-02-01 at 14:54 -0500, G. Matthew Rice wrote:
> >
> > I was thinking what you have here initially, but now that I see it, I
> > think a more natural flow might be to have
> >
> > <level><version><2-digit objective>.
> >
> > Topic 2101: System Architecture
> >
> > * 2101.1 Determine and configure hardware settings
> >
> > I say it is "more natural" since it is more natural to say "level 2,
> > version 1" than to say the reverse. The fear is that it might interfere
> > with your existing system.
>
> They look pretty close but did you typo the 2101? This is for LPIC-1. An
> the versions will probably follow the sequence: 2.0, 2.1 (update), 3.0 (full
> redo), 3.1, ...
>
> So with the full version in your model, wouldn't it be:
>
> Topic 12001: System Architecture
>
> * 12001.1 Determine and configure hardware settings
>
> Regards,
> --
> g. matthew rice <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> starnix care, toronto, ontario, ca
> phone: 647.722.5301 x242 gpg id: EF9AAD20
> http://www.starnix.com professional linux services & products
> _______________________________________________
> lpi-examdev mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://list.lpi.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpi-examdev
> �
_______________________________________________
lpi-examdev mailing list
[email protected]
http://list.lpi.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpi-examdev
