Добро пожаловать, Гость. Пожалуйста авторизуйтесь здесь.
FGHIGate на GaNJa NeTWoRK ST@Ti0N - Просмотр сообщения в эхоконференции FTSC_PUBLIC
Введите FGHI ссылку:


Присутствуют сообщения из эхоконференции FTSC_PUBLIC с датами от 13 Sep 13 18:57:24 до 01 Apr 24 01:17:44, всего сообщений: 7124
Ответить на сообщение К списку сообщений Предыдущее сообщение Следующее сообщение
= Сообщение: 5338 из 7124 ====================================== FTSC_PUBLIC =
От   : Rob Swindell                     1:103/705          19 Dec 20 17:33:48
Кому : Maurice Kinal                                       19 Dec 20 17:33:48
Тема : alternative DateTime (ref: fts-0001.016)
FGHI : area://FTSC_PUBLIC?msgid=30792.ftsc_pub@1:103/705+24445844
На   : area://FTSC_PUBLIC?msgid=1:153/7001+5fdea033
= Кодировка сообщения определена как: ASCII ==================================
Ответ: area://FTSC_PUBLIC?msgid=1:153/7001+5fdeada9
==============================================================================
  Re: alternative DateTime (ref: fts-0001.016)
  By: Maurice Kinal to Rob Swindell on Sun Dec 20 2020 12:52 am

> Hey Rob!
>
>  RS> Which is to say: it would not work at all, in a backwards
>  RS> compatible way.
>
> It is EXACTLY as backwards compatible as it needs to be, both for now as
> well as back in 1995 and probably earlier.

I guess you don't know what "backwards compatible" means. Backwards compatible means it would continue to work with existing systems. Your proposal does not continue to work with existing systems.

> Unless you can point to a currently running system, or even one back in
> 1968, that required a two
> digit year to function in order to achieve proper FTN based digital
> communications,

All currently running systems using SBBSecho would reject packets that contain dates in your proposed format since the date format you propposed does not conform to the FTN specs. I suspect most other echomail programs would do the same.

> then I will still maintain that the current proposal stands
> and is indeed TRULY backwards compatible.  By you limited definition nothing
> is backwards compatible including 8-bit systems that require a 2 digit year
> for their punch card IO database.

Its not specifically the number of digits in the year that is the problem but rather that the various numeric fields are in a different order and at different offsets within the date/time string field.

> Please feel free to fold, spindle and mutilate THAT.

Is this how you normally engage in technical discussions?

>  RS> Continuing what?
>
> Living and learning.

Sure. I don't see the relevance.
--- SBBSecho 3.11-Linux
* Origin: Vertrauen - [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net (1:103/705)

К главной странице гейта
Powered by NoSFeRaTU`s FGHIGate
Открытие страницы: 0.047696 секунды