Received: by ATHENA-PO-2.MIT.EDU (5.45/4.7) id AA00994; Fri, 11 Aug 89 07:24:43 EDT
Received: by ATHENA.MIT.EDU (5.45/4.7) id AA19809; Fri, 11 Aug 89 07:25:03 EDT
Received: from uunet.uu.net by expo.lcs.mit.edu; Fri, 11 Aug 89 07:22:11 EDT
Received: from ukc.UUCP by uunet.uu.net (5.61/1.14) with UUCP 
	id AA10629; Fri, 11 Aug 89 07:21:55 -0400
Received: from cam-orl by kestrel.Ukc.AC.UK   with UUCP  id aa03861;
          9 Aug 89 10:16 BST
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 89 8:50 BST
From: Tim Glauert <cam-orl!thg@uunet.uu.net>
To: Todd Brunhoff <toddb@tekcrl.labs.tek.com>
Cc: xvideo@expo.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Protocol 3.4 Comments
Message-Id: <89/08/09 08:50.940 thg@mango>
In-Reply-To: Todd Brunhoff's message of 08 Aug 89 093936 PDT (Tue)

>    VIDEOID:            VIDEOIN, VIDEOOUT or VIDEODEVICE

In that case, can we change the name `device-controls` to `videoid-controls`
and the name `device-atoms` to `videoid-atoms` ?

In general, can the protocol document avoid using `device` or `video device`
when in means `VIDEOID` ? This will help simpletons like me to read the
protocol properly.

	Tim.

Tim Glauert, Olivetti Research Limited,		|	thg@cam-orl.UUCP
24a Trumpington Street, Cambridge, England.	|