Bancroft Scott wrote:
Oops! You have detected a bug in the X.680, as
AdditionalComponentTypeList is not even defined.
Is this an agreed defect, and is some-one recording it?
--
Prof John Larmouth
1 Blueberry Road [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bowdon
John Larmouth wrote:
Bancroft Scott wrote:
Oops! You have detected a bug in the X.680, as
AdditionalComponentTypeList is not even defined.
Is this an agreed defect, and is some-one recording it?
Me, as usual, John!
But don't expect me to produce any administrative defect report.
I'm
On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, Benoit POSTE wrote:
Bancroft Scott wrote:
snip
I don't have X.680 handy at the moment, but if you check the docs you will
see that SET requires that new extension additions MUST use tags that are
canonically greater than any other existing tag in the SET, so
