On Tuesday 06 September 2005 02:00, Timothy Miller wrote: > On 9/5/05, Jack Carroll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I like the thinking in this thread a _lot_. I think the letter > > combination OGA will suggest the right concepts to the intended audience. > > The fully written-out phrase is even better. How about: > > > > OGA means Open Graphics Architecture. > > Any ASIC that implements an OGA is an OGA IC. > > Any board containing an OGA implementation is an OGA Card. > > I'm diggin' this.
Sounds fine to me... > I'm cool with OGA1, OGA2, etc. for spec names, although I think we > should use a decimalized version number. We'll have OGA1.1 at some > point, and the chip will be called the OGA1.1 IC. You won't have a > chip without a corresponding spec, and if there's a deviation (like > there's an update to the spec that doesn't require an IC change), we > can use names like OGA1.3.1. This general 1-to-1 correspondence > between spec and IC should alleviate confusion. But if there are no changes in the chip between specs 1.3.0, 1.3.1 and 1.3.2 then shouldn't the chip be labeled OGA1.3? Lourens
pgpng4X5opvI0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Open-graphics mailing list [email protected] http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
