- From: Sebastian Hammer <quinn@indexdata.dk>
- Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 11:15:23 -0400
- To: Rob Bull <bull@crxnet.com>, Ray Denenberg <rden@loc.gov>
- Cc: www-zig@w3.org
At 16:01 20-10-00 +0000, Rob Bull wrote: > > Was there a reason to explicitly define AttributesPlusTerm instead of > Importing > > it? I thought there was, but I can't reconstruct it. It could have been > > Imported. Does it matter? Do you want a defect report generated? >... its just that I thought we generally tried to avoid duplication of ASN >where possible. We're happy to leave it is as it is - its probably less >hassle than going through the defect procedure. There's no interoperability issue, but for the convenience of people using ASN.1 compilers, it seems to me it would be preferable to avoid this type of redundancy. So I guess I would cast my vote for fixing thew problem, if indeed Attributesplusterm has been wrongfully re-defined. --Sebastian -- Sebastian Hammer <quinn@indexdata.dk> Index Data ApS Ph.: +45 3341 0100 <http://www.indexdata.dk> Fax: +45 3341 0101
Received on Friday, 20 October 2000 11:15:43 UTC