>I would prefer to see this phrased in terms of the XP application >determining whether a given message conforms to a version of XP that the >application recognises rather than in terms of comparison of twos messages. >I don't think evolution is defined in terms of messages being compatible >with each other but in terms of messages conforming to a given version of >XP. Hi Martin, Hopefully the new wording that leaves out the 'comparison' is more acceptable to you. >I'm also having some difficulty understanding what the last sentence means. >How can an XP envelope *mandate* that an application be extended? Sorry, wording a bit raggy there. What this is meant to mean is that the it may be mandatory for an XP processor to process certain extensions or fail. --ohReceived on Wednesday, 22 November 2000 06:55:28 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:57 GMT