Re: CAP 13: Bad CAL-QUERY example / description?

[email protected] wrote:

>
> Doug replied on 06/07/2004 11:44:34 AM:
> > I did not see any new questions that had not already been answered.
>
> There was 1 question and one non-direct question that have not been 
> answered yet.  First the non-direct question:
>
> > Having the CS strip off the BEGIN/END markers has 2 effects:
> >
> > 1: It saves a mere 22 octets of data per subcomponent being returned 
> and
> > 2: Causes the data belonging to all subcomponents to bleed together
> > into a mush that makes separate subcomponent identification and use 
> impossible
> >
> > Please show me how this is useful.
>
> To make it a formal question then; Can anyone please show me how this 
> is really useful? 

I made no argument that it was or was smaller per object.

>
> The undiscussed/unanswered question:
>
> > If the "component.*" concept was removed from 6.1.1, you can _still_
> > get all your data from all the unknown sources you want.  It would
> > just be a few octets longer AND all subcomponents would be fully
> > parsable, separatable and usable.  How would that be bad??  

You forgot embedded object are included in the other form. MUCH more 
that 22 octets per object.

And again it works as documented, is it really worth rewriting simply 
becuase you want
it another way? What is your justification for wanting to change this at 
this late date?

-- 

Doug Royer                     |   http://INET-Consulting.com
-------------------------------|-----------------------------
[email protected]                 | Office: (208)520-4044
http://Royer.com/People/Doug   | Fax:    (866)594-8574
                               | Cell:   (208)520-4044

              We Do Standards - You Need Standards