Are we having fun yet Rob?


Oct 17 11:52 04, Rob Swindell wrote to Paul Westell:

 >> That is a problem most seem to regard as rather minor and by itself
 >> hardly justifies modifying current standards.

 RS> Non-unique MSGIDs defeat the whole purpose of MSGIDs and are 
 RS> basically useless.
 RS> I consider that problem much more than minor.  

You seem to be alone in that.

 >> You stated deficiencies in the plural. Are the remainder so
 >> insignificant that they are not worth explaining? If so then they
 >> hardly require fixing. Please be more forthcoming.

 RS> Actually, I used the word "inadequacies". The inadequacies I'm 
                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^

----------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Swindell  2004-10-13 11:22:26

 > making-up for the diffiencies of FTS-9. The 4th "field" is
just a repeat
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^
----------------------------------------------------------------


I had not seen fit until now to comment on your spelling.

 RS> referring to are
 RS> specifically, that the MSGID is made up of specified "fields" with 
 RS> limited 
 RS> specific content. MSGIDs should (and in most cases *are*) stored and 
 RS> used as
 RS> simple text strings that uniquely identify a message. To summarize, 
 RS> you could
 RS> say there is just one inadequacy of FTS-9, that being that it 
 RS> dictates the
 RS> exact content of a MSGID, and limits the "unique" portion to just 
 RS> 32-bits.

You have now reduced the unspecified number of unspecified 
deficiencies you originally claimed to a single inadequecy. 
One that appears to bother only you. 

Thank you. You have done much to clarify the issue.


It could be worse ...
Paul

--- Msged/LNX 6.1.1