[standards-jig] spring cleaning!
justin-jdev at affinix.com
Tue Apr 22 03:43:19 UTC 2003
> > - 41 (Jidlink) -- how does this relate to 65 and 47? retract?
> This doesn't seem to be useful in a world in which -65 exists (and is
> Draft). Needs to be retracted or rejected IMO.
Actually, the existence of -65 doesn't change anything. The problem is still
there. -41 was made for simplifying applications that want to target both
IBB and DTCP. Now that S5B has superceded DTCP, I could change the JEP to
Earlier this month, I threw some ideas around of how to resolve -41:
Basically, my idea is to rename -41 to "Bytestreams" and clean it up, then
change -47 and -65 to reflect the new inheritance and namespace.
More information about the Standards