RE: Backward compatible?

Subject: RE: Backward compatible?
From: Emru Townsend <etownsen -at- Softimage -dot- com>
To: "'techwrl'" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com>
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 13:53:27 -0500

I disagree. "Backward compatible" carries the implication that Version 4
can work with Version 4's data, but not vice versa. Compare that to Word
2000's files being compatible with Word 97's.

Emru Townsend, Information Developer | etownsen -at- softimage -dot- com
Softimage, Inc.
Black History Pages: http://purpleplanetmedia.com/bhp
Recent musings: http://www.montreal.com/tech/2000/01/25reso.html


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Geoff Hart [mailto:Geoff-H -at- MTL -dot- FERIC -dot- CA]
>
> This is the wording I'm most familiar with, but although it's
> well-accepted
> jargon, I'm mostly convinced it's unnecessary jargon. Simply
> saying "Version
> 4 is compatible with Version 3" should suffice in the vast
> majority of cases
> because "backward" is redundant; if the reader can't figure
> out that going
> from version 4 to version 3 is backwards, they need to
> install the Scarecrow
> 1.1 upgrade.




Previous by Author: RE: Font problems in PDF; Importing Excel to FM
Next by Author: RE: PageMaker > Acrobat: bookmarks?
Previous by Thread: Backward compatible?
Next by Thread: RE: Backward compatible?


What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads


Sponsored Ads