Hello Wilfred,

On Sat Jan 28 2017 12:10:40, Wilfred van Velzen wrote to Nicholas Boel:

 WV>>> I didn't even notice that. ;)

 WV>>> So that's wrong too...

 NB>> It's been corrected. Can we move on please?

 WV> You sound annoyed? Aren't we discussing this to improve the document?

I'm not sure how I can "sound" anything. I'm not making any noise except for
the clicking of my keyboard, and I'm fairly certain you can not hear that. As
for the discussion (I'm still not convinced we're making any actual
"improvements"), with only a few people involved in the discussion, "improving"
the document only seems to be up to the opinion of those few, while all I'm
trying to do is get the proposal to the point where it can take the place of
the current mess in the FTSC library regarding packet types. This one here
covers about 3-4 current half-finished (as they seem) documents regarding the
same subject.

 WV> I still don't understand why the numbers need to be explicity
 WV> mentioned 1 by 1. These documents aren't ment for 5 year olds! ;) Why
 WV> not just use the FTS-0001 notation: ' = "00" | .. | "59" '. Isn't that
 WV> clear enough?

Apparantly, since you didn't understand (or most likely didn't care to at the
very least) what Stephen was originally going for with the ABNF (RFC-822 and
RFC-5234) content - which in all actuality covers everything FTS-0001 says
about the matter and then some (just not word-for-word), along with recent
arguments on what original authors of 25+ year old Fidonet documents /really/
meant to write still seeming to be an issue in today's Fidonet (ie: MSGID and
REPLY kludge standard, for example), it may indeed need to be written for and
understood by 5 year olds!

Regards,
Nick

... "Не знаю. Я здесь только работаю."
--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20161221