Subj : proposed new nodelist To : mark lewis From : Jasen Betts Date : Fri Jul 26 2002 09:49 am JB>> why noty use the extensions to reduce size of the fixed component JB>> to the essentials. ml> i just see no need to go to that level... plain ASCII text is fine ml> and we don't really need to go adding 's to everything, ml> do we I was just describing my proposal.... with 6 fixed fileds and then 3*n optional fileds... each 3 fileds describing a connection method, I wasn't suggesting XML style tags... I 've given up on them. ml>>> then you loose the placeholders... they are needed if they are ml>>> the first row for that entry, too.. JB>> what I meant was by putting POTS into the extension there's no JB>> need for empty fields, on non-pots systems. ml> won't be any empty fields, i don't believe... how do you represent a private node? JB>> if is there's a flag on the first row that you don't want on the JB>> second row, what do you do... ml> redefine that flag sequence on the subsequent row(s) huh? JB>> put it last on the fisrs row and use fewer commas on the second JB>> row? (could work but could trap many programmers) ml> no, the flags section is a comma seperated list just like the ml> row... kinda like an OOP object as a data item in another OOP ml> object.. huh? do you mean the flags section is treated like a single field? so if there are any flags on a line all the flags from the line above are ingnored for the current line? -=> Bye <=- --- * Origin: Every solution breeds new problems. (3:640/531.42) .