> i) we drop these base types entirely (it was a nice idea, but not
> essential) - this may break some of Ralph's code
> iii) we keep these base types but they only define the version parameter
> (extra...Data etc. going into the specific types).

> My preference is iii, followed by i.
> Any opinions?

I agree. ii isn't really an option.  iii will maintain the base object,
which is handy, but not essential. If it turns out impossible, then i is
a possible recourse.

Rob

--
      ,'/:.          Dr Robert Sanderson ([log in to unmask])
    ,'-/::::.        http://www.o-r-g.org/~azaroth/
  ,'--/::(@)::.      Special Collections and Archives, extension 3142
,'---/::::::::::.    Nebmedes:  http://nebmedes.o-r-g.org:8000/
____/:::::::::::::.
I L L U M I N A T I