DN> PID: MaltEd/2 1.0.b6

PE> I just thought I'd let you know that I am sending a message to 
PE> the FTSC Chair to complain about your lack of compliance with 
PE> the PID spec.

ac> :-)  It's a proposal.

Yep, so don't use it if you don't like it.  Write your own
proposal instead, that's exactly the way you like it.

PE> It's the "6" that's non-compliant BTW.

ac> Does it really matter?

If you think it doesn't matter, then the PID spec should be
changed to make it free-format, that way EVERYONE is happy,
if that is what EVERYONE wants!  I certainly don't mind the
PID spec being changed.

However, the way it is worded at the moment, it tells you very
precisely what it should be, so that it can be used, e.g. to
translate "g" into "gamma" if you want to display it in an
expanded form.  People's lack of compliance means that such code
would break.  I fail to see why people should have to code around
other people's inability to conform to the specs.  Or more to
the point, I am happy to do validation that makes sure anything
non-conformant gets a general error of "grunged message", and we
all know what happens to grunged messages.  BFN.  Paul.
@EOT:

---