G'Day Ross,

23 Nov 02 19:06, you wrote to me:

 RC>>> In order to make it worthwhile for programmers to code for it, it
 RC>>> has to be actually tested to see if its worthwhile.

 RR>> How can you test it if there is no software to act upon it other than
 RR>> a script designed to parse it? I mean you can write a script to parse
 RR>> anything out of a csv file.

 RC> Cart before the horse or chicken before the egg.

Not really, you can add any new flag to the nodelist as long as the nodelist
compiler is informed about and the flag is at the end. Its just text. No need
to test that.

 RR>> Michiel Broek, but I believe it would need to be an FTSC standard
 RR>> first. Again this is only one piece of software and there's more than
 RR>> one piece of software out there.

 RC> It wont become a standard if it is not used...

Personally I don't see why an existing working system needs to be changed.

 RC> I honestly do not know where you have been in the past 2 weeks?

 RC> I had a node in my region who wanted to list a FQDN next to every IP
 RC> protocol he offers, it threw his listing up to 234 chars, with my flag,
 RC> it lowered his listing well within the tolerances imposed by makenl.

So how will it help him if theres no software to take advantage of it? Or
does he have software that will work with it and thus solve his problem?

 RC> Are there pro's and con's with my proposal? Why certainly, but I can
 RC> name pro's and cons's with anything else that has been implemented.

Yes, but this proposal destroys any chance of backward compatability.

Cheers,
                Rick

... Everyone has a photographic memory. Some don't have film.

--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5 - Debian/GNU