🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <775@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca> lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca (Larry Phillips) writes:
>In <20058@usc.edu>, papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) writes:
>>The current spec allows ALL of this.  Time for a second reading of the spec?

>Yes, I have read the spec, several times.
>I was not commenting, in particular, on the XPR spec itself, 

Well, this is what you said:

In article <773@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca> lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca (Larry s) writes:
|All configurations are possible, and though some might be less probable than
|others, I don't think we should limit the choices of configuration by limiting
				 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|implementations of programs such as XEMs and XPRs;
		    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

That is definitely a comment on the XPRs and XEMs, not on the way the comm 
program might use them.  As I said it is the comm program that can decide
to use the XEMs and XPRs the way it wants. The spec does not "limit the
implementations of programs such as XEMs and XPRs" as far as your types of
'future' comm programs are concerned.

> but rather, on the
>comments by you in the posting I was replying to, wherein you said things like
>"it doesn't make sense to have more than one... <whatever> in a (comm | BBS)
>. It was an observation, pointing out that it might indeed make sense to
>have any configuration we can visualize, or even those we have not thought of
>yet.

Agreed.

-- Marco Papa 'Doc'
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
uucp:...!pollux!papa       BIX:papa       ARPAnet:pollux!papa@oberon.usc.edu
"There's Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Diga and Caligari!" -- Rick Unland
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=