** This is the quasi-official and semi-temporary T13 email list server. ** I believe, like Don, that accredited standards committees should look beyond the immediate and short term goals of the current committee membership. Documents that are useful to only a few companies are not standards and will not last. During the last year T13 has become completely dominated by companies in the desktop and notebook computer markets. No attention is being paid to the needs of other users of the ATA (or even ATAPI) interfaces. ATA/ATAPI-6 will be of no value to anyone outside of the desktop and notebook markets. For example, removing the old PIO modes from ATA/ATAPI-6 will only serve to confuse everyone and cause people to ignore the standard. And there is no good reason to remove the old PIO modes other than to confuse people. And what makes T13 think it can just change the definition of a command without consulting the people that make devices that use the command? I am refering to the CFA Translate Sector command. If you were a member of CFA and saw this happening what do you think your reaction would be? Did anyone stop to think that a CF ATA device would not work in something like a digial camera if this command did not work as expected? This is a prime example of T13's lack of concern and interest in being the keeper of a standard that can be widely used. T13 is becoming an organization that should be or will be ignored. T13 will probably serve no useful purpose in another year. In its place we will see multiple definitions of what we call ATA/ATAPI. Most likely each will address some narrow market for ATA or ATAPI devices. Most likely many will be the result of "secret societies" and may even be "secret" implementations. Like Don, I say that a person or company should not have to be a member and should not have to show up at meetings to make proposals or to point out problems or to defend their needs, especially needs that are covered in a current standard. Removing things that are needed and used by others and then saying "you should have been at the meeting" is total crap. And finally I would like to say that the only time comments I sent to a document editor were ignored was in the case of SFF-8020. True, maybe editors should not pay attention to such comments but I have seen only one case where the editors of a document would not acknowledge problems reported to them and/or bring the problems to the their committees attention. And unfortunately it is now some six years later and we are still trying to fix and recover from those problems in SFF-8020. *** Hale Landis *** [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** Niwot, CO USA *** www.ata-atapi.com *** -- If you have any questions or wish to unsubscribe send a message to Hale Landis, [EMAIL PROTECTED] To post to this list server send your message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For questions concerning Thistle Grove Industries or TGI's list services please send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
