Subject:
|
Re: BFC problem with 970s01.dat?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dat.parts
|
Date:
|
Thu, 20 Mar 2003 06:34:49 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1387 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dat.parts, Kyle McDonald writes:
> 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 stating this officially.
Actually this is stated in the BFC spec but it wasn't enforced until the PT
was created.
-Orion
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
8 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
