> Hi Joho, some people have raised some questions about your
 > specs, and I was wondering if you could clarify them.  Is
 > the following PID out-of-spec:

 > PID Msged 2.2e

I would not consider it out-of-spec, no.

 > I thought it was out-of-spec because you're not allowed to
 > go "e", you're meant to go ".a" or ".b"
or ".g", "e" is not
 > acceptable.  But others have taken the tack that that is
 > simply a non-numeric revision number.

.a, .b, and .g were intended to mean "alpha", "beta",
and "gamma". .b1 would be beta revision one. If the version
number indeed is 2.2e, then the above is what it should look like.

 > PID Msged 3
 > rather than
 > PID Msged 3.00

Yes.

 > But if someone's revision is "0.89" are they meant to write
 > that as ".89" because you say to only include the significant
 > stuff,

Yes.

 > and in this case 0 is not significant?  In this case, which is
 > correct, "0.89", ".89" or either?

.89

 > Also, with the many many violations already happening, is
 > there any reason why you don't just release the screws on the
 > PID and say that it is free-format?

There is no reason to make it "free-format".

I can't stop (and won't even attempt to) people from abusing it, if they
can't read - there's nothing I can do about it. At least it isn't being
abused as much as the "tear-line concept" (yet).

 > Personally, I *like* to be able to specify 3.00 as 3.00 rather than
 > 3

So make your code that displays PID information interpret them according to
specs and display "3.00" for "3".

 > and I have code that says put 3.00 in the tearline, and 3 in the PID.

But they're (supposed to be) mutually exclusive ;-)

---