= Сообщение: 5386 из 7128 ====================================== FTSC_PUBLIC = От : Carol Shenkenberger 1:275/100 06 Jan 21 19:09:26 Кому : Martin Foster 06 Jan 21 19:09:26 Тема : Fidonet Reference Library(FSC's) FGHI : area://FTSC_PUBLIC?msgid=7653.ftsc_pub@1:275/100+245ba51b На : area://FTSC_PUBLIC?msgid=2:310/31.3@fidonet+ec0c0461 = Кодировка сообщения определена как: ASCII ================================== ============================================================================== Re: Fidonet Reference Library(FSC's) By: Martin Foster to Carol Shenkenberger on Sat Jan 02 2021 12:59 pm
> Hello Carol! > > *** Friday 01.01.21 at 12:16, Carol Shenkenberger wrote to Martin Foster: > > [snip] > >> [1]Is there any record anywhere of the reason(s) why these proposals > >> were rejected? > >> > >> [2]Is a software developer permitted to implement any of these > >> rejected proposals in his/her software? > >> > >> [3]Am I correct in assuming that the FSP's are proposals awaiting > >> either acceptance or rejection by the FTSC? > > CS> 3 is correct. Many of them are NEVER picked up so never become a > CS> standard. > > OK, fine. > > CS> 2 is also correct. Any developer can chose to run with them > CS> but they may find if not compatible with others (and is something that > CS> has to be), then it doesn't work. > > OK, fine. > > I have another question :) > > If a developer chooses to implement one of the FSC's, is it then at > the discretion of other software developers to provide support(or not) > for the implementation in their own software? > > CS> 1 is a 'no'. There is no tracking on just why something someone > CS> proposed, never made standard. > > OK, fine. > > CS> The FTSC doesn't 'reject proposals'. They vote on existing ones that a > CS> in use by enough to be a standard. > > Ah, by "enough", do you mean in widespread use or what? > > Regards, > Martin >
Sorry for the delay. Long work hours kicking in. If you implement a proposal, then you can hope others will as well. If you make a secondary tool to create a backwards compatible version for use with systems that need it, it's more apt to work.
Look at PKZIP. Over time, they added extra options for better encryption and packing but left the tools available to deal with the older versions.
On the standards, that's a bit of a quality call on 'how much is enough'. Some didn't need much at all, others seem to look for 10% or so.
