Subj : proposed new nodelist
To   : mark lewis
From : Jasen Betts
Date : Fri Jul 26 2002 10:49 am

JB>> why noty use the extensions to reduce size of the fixed component
JB>> to the essentials.

ml> i just see no need to go to that level... plain ASCII text is fine
ml> and we don't really need to go adding <TAG></TAG>'s to everything,
ml> do we

I was just describing my proposal.... with 6 fixed fileds and then 3*n
optional fileds... each 3 fileds describing a connection method,
I wasn't suggesting XML style tags... I 've given up on them.

ml>>> then you loose the placeholders... they are needed if they are
ml>>> the first row for that entry, too..

JB>> what I meant was by putting POTS into the extension there's no
JB>> need for empty fields, on non-pots systems.

ml> won't be any empty fields, i don't believe...

how do you represent a private node?

JB>> if is there's a flag on the first row that you don't want on the
JB>> second row, what do you do...

ml> redefine that flag sequence on the subsequent row(s)

huh?

JB>> put it last on the fisrs row and use fewer commas on the second
JB>> row? (could work but could trap many programmers)

ml> no, the flags section is a comma seperated list just like the
ml> row... kinda like an OOP object as a data item in another OOP
ml> object..

huh? do you mean the flags section is treated like a single field?
so if there are any flags on a line all the flags from the line above are
ingnored for the current line?

-=> Bye <=-

---
# Origin: Every solution breeds new problems. (3:640/531.42)
* Origin: Baddog BBS (1:218/903)