22 Jun 95 15:00, Mikael St†ldal wrote to Mel Pheasant:

 >>  MS>Can't the conflict be resolved by changing FTS-1?

 >> Er, you better review what the whole purpose of a standard is, in 
 >> the first place. One of the goals of a standard is to remain 
 >> standard, and to be standard. Hence it's name, standard.

 > I know, but does that really apply to FTS-1? Does it really deserve to 
 > be called a standard then? Isn't FTS-1 rather "description of current 
 > practice"? And if the current practice has changed, why not change 
 > FTS-1?

Are you volunteering?

andrew

--- Msgedsq/2 3.10