On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 7:27 PM, Gerolf Seitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 6:19 PM, Bernd Fondermann < > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > this has my sympathy. yet I don't know what that buys us. 3920f is > > what all the clients and servers out there are coded against. > > We _have_ to comply to them if we want to be interoperable. The diff > > is not too big I think, so that should be no big deal complying to > > both, RFCs and BISs. > > > > i think the biggest plus is that the bis revision may have a more > finegrained structure > or at least better examples and some clarifications. > > what i'm gonna do is stick to the bis revision, and after a feature (or > parts of a feature) > is somehow finished, check back with the original rfc.
+1, nothing exceptional new in the BIS, so retrofitting to the RFC should be doable. referencing the bis in the compliant annotation could be backfiring when there are structural changes made in later revisions. Bernd --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
