[AccessD] Names or numbers?

Hi Jim

> I will look around and see if I have a copy of the standards document,
> remove any direct references to the government and it can then be uploaded.
> It is actually only a few pages long.

Great! Is Susan still the editor in charge?

> It was not that the lack of a signature lost the contract, because the
> contractor was well known to the contract review group...it was just a silly
> over-sight, that could have been easily rectified. It was that virtually
> anything could have lost a contractor's application bid, or any contractor,
> even though the contractor in question was a very competent applicant. My
> main issue was that competence and capability was not being used as the
> primary decision guide.

OK, now I got your point. And it is right, people sometimes forget
that the client's primary decision guides can be quite different from
what you think.

/gustav


>> I had the pleasure of writing a document on how a reference document could
>> be written. It was later accepted as a standard. From that day on, all
>> fonts, weight, indentation of any application manuals had to adhere the
>> standard. All submissions were marked up or down by compliance.

>> That process goes doubly for coding. Every table, view, stored procedure
>> field, key and foreign key name must comply. So many lines of explanation
>> for every piece of code and so on.

> Sounds like a decent piece of work! Could it be (revised and) brought
> to the dba site as a guide? I mean, not (necessarily) a guide to
> follow, but to how such a guide could look and what you need to
> specify?

>> There are many good companies, with good developers out there. If one does
>> not what to comply there is no point in bidding on a contract. I have
>> witnessed a perspective contractor, with an otherwise, perfect bid loss a
>> contract on just a missed signature.

> What are you telling here? No signature, no contract - but why did the
> signature miss?

> /gustav