🚀 go-pugleaf

In <20079@usc.edu>, papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) writes:
>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.

This is a dead horse, and I refuse to beat it any more, so this will be my
final comment on the matter.

First, I used the phrase "such as", which you might attempt to discover the
meaning of. Secondly, XPR's and XEM's was used in the general sense, and was
not specifically directed at any given spec or implementation. You know of one
such spec at this time. Don't assume that it is the final and only one.

-larry

--
The Mac? Oh, that's just like a computer, only slower.
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ 
|   //   Larry Phillips                                                 |
| \X/    lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca -or- uunet!van-bc!lpami!lphillips |
|        COMPUSERVE: 76703,4322  -or-  76703.4322@compuserve.com        |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+