I guess this just answered the email I just sent. Thanks for reading my mind, such as it is ... ;-)
On Sunday 19 February 2006 22:39, Gregory Woodhouse wrote: On Feb 19, 2006, at 6:28 PM, Gary Monger wrote: > Unless there will be actual interconnection with these systems, > they could > all be called the same. If a small range of institution numbers > were set > aside, it should cover anything short of a hospital chain. I don't think it's quite that simple (unfortunately) because you have to consider "indirect" connections, like buying from the same vendor, too. Nevertheless, your point about setting aside private numbers is a good one. I've thought that reserving 999 for non-connected systems (for example) might be a good idea, though I haven't really thought through all the implications of doing this. === Gregory Woodhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] "You must unlearn what you have learned." --Yoda ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=103432&bid=230486&dat=121642 _______________________________________________ Hardhats-members mailing list Hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hardhats-members -- Nancy Anthracite ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=103432&bid=230486&dat=121642 _______________________________________________ Hardhats-members mailing list Hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hardhats-members
