Subject:
|
Re: BFC problem with 970s01.dat?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dat.parts
|
Date:
|
Thu, 20 Mar 2003 00:07:55 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1096 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dat.parts, Chris Dee writes:
> IIRC, my claim of making this BFC compliant was found to be incorrect when
> reviewed in the PT. So to expedite its release, I suspect Steve did an admin
> edit of the 0 BFC CERTIFY line (since we only insist on BFC compliance for
> primitives) to make it "correct".
insist? Did you mean await?
The whole file including primitives should be BFC compliant to have the CERTIFY.
> I think it is OK for other BFC commands to exist within a BFC NOCERTIFY
> file, but that parsers should treat them as comments.
Yes, a NOCERTIFY can be considered as a (temporary) turn-off-BFC,
and other BFC statements should silently be ignored.
/Lars
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: BFC problem with 970s01.dat?
|
| (...) No I thin khe meant that only new and updated primitives are required to be BFC compliant to be accepted to the parts tracker. Parts are still accepted that aren't certified though that is preferable. Though I'm not sure I've seen anything (...) (22 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: BFC problem with 970s01.dat?
|
| (...) IIRC, my claim of making this BFC compliant was found to be incorrect when reviewed in the PT. So to expedite its release, I suspect Steve did an admin edit of the 0 BFC CERTIFY line (since we only insist on BFC compliance for primitives) to (...) (22 years ago, 18-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
8 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
