From: "Neil Jennings" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> In 2.0, there is a %% directive in which the version is specified.
> I would expect that this would be mandatory if the file is written
> using 2.0 standard or later, otherwise
> there wouldn't be much point in having it.
Ok that helps. But it still s
At 06:10 PM 4/22/04, you wrote:
2. if I've got this right, it would seem to be like shooting
oneself in the foot to approve (eg) !pp! now as a dynamic (for
1.7.6) only to deprecate it in v2 and say one must use +pp+, and
then use ! as a line break, especially as there is nothing in the
file (or
From: "Christian M. Cepel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> *There has been a draft for a revised standard (with version
number
> 1.7.6 and dated 08/05/00), but it never acquired an "official"
status.
> *
> I know there is lots of debate regarding 1.7.6 and 2.0, but I fail
to
> understand why 1.7.6 cannot b
A couple of revisions
> I believe, it also looks bad, when Chris' website is the most linked
> to
> 'introduction to the ABC concept' and the last official standard was
> approved of 'umpteen odd' years ago. It looks like little official
> work has been done on ABC and like so many things you ma
Quote from that website...
*There has been a draft for a revised standard (with version number
1.7.6 and dated 08/05/00), but it never acquired an "official" status.
*
I know there is lots of debate regarding 1.7.6 and 2.0, but I fail to
understand why 1.7.6 cannot be given "official" status for
