MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->
emergency message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: RE: [emergency] Talking Point re CAP and CEA "Public Alert"
Art Botterell wrote:
> We're the new guys on the block, and we're taken pains
> to be compatible with the old established systems.
There is that "compatible" word again... I was surprised to
see it at the bottom of Art's message since everything up to that
point seemed to be acknowledging that CAP *was not* compatible with
existing systems and explaining why it wasn't compatible. (Note: Not
being compatible is *not* a negative thing. It is just a statement of
fact.)
So, can you please explain what is meant by "compatible"? The
usage here is foreign to me and doesn't seem to conform to either my
experience or the definitions given in the dictionaries that I use.
Perhaps there is some intent to indicate a non-syntactical
compatibility. i.e. While the syntaxes, message formats, etc. are
incompatible, there is some attempt to remain "compatible" in terms of
concepts, philosophy, etc. Is this what you're getting at? If so, I
think it would be better to say that. "Compatibility" in the computer
business is usually a question of syntax and format -- not concept. My
concern is that if this apparently "unusual" usage of the word
"compatible" continues, people may come to think that the CAP TC is
making promises that can't be kept. Or, they might just assume that it
simply is not much of an advance over what has been traditionally
available. (i.e. if CAP *was* compatible with EAS, etc. then it
*couldn't* be very different from them.)... This would not be good.
bob wyman