TEAM-ADA Archives

Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy

TEAM-ADA@LISTSERV.ACM.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Proportional Font
Show HTML Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Richard Conn <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Richard Conn <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 18 Jul 2000 14:53:56 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (23 lines)
Randy,

Since my position matches that of the definition quoted by Mike Feldman,
I have no idea why you think it's not supported.  I started off saying
that a standard can be proprietary (which was my point), and Mike disagreed
and then agreed, quoting his definition.

As for your issues, it sounds like you are saying that something cannot
be a standard if it is not clear and unambiguous.  That's not the case
either ... some standards are ambiguous or unclear, as is the English
language.

====================================
Richard Conn, Principal Investigator
Reuse Tapestry

...

Memo to Rick: I've read this whole thread, and I think that most of the
E-Mail supports Mike Feldman's possible. I don't know what mail you read,
but you'd have to twist it a lot to support your position. Perhaps Microsoft
has figured out a way to brainwash attendees to Tech-Ed? :-)

ATOM RSS1 RSS2