Re: Notation data language

[David Shaw <dshaw@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, Dec 05, 2001 at 10:18:24AM -0800, hal@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> David Shaw writes:
> > I've been writing some code involving notation data (5.3.2.16 in
> > bis-03).  As I read it, the human-readable flag applies to the value
> > data of the name=value pair and not to the name data.
> >
> > If I do read this correctly, I'd like to suggest a change in the line
> > "This note is text, a note from one person to another, and has no
> > meaning to software." to read "The value is text, a note from one
> > person...", etc, which would help make clear what the human readable
> > flag applies to.
> 
> I don't fully understand the distinction.  You are saying that the
> "name" part would be machine readable, but the "value" part would not?

Other way around - the language in the draft ("Notation names are
arbitrary strings encoded in UTF-8") strongly suggests that the the
human-readable flag only applies to the "value", and the "name" is
always human readable, albeit UTF8.

I was hoping to make the language clearer, or if I misread the
document, to make it clearer in the other direction :)

David

-- 
David Shaw          |  Technical Lead
<dshaw@xxxxxxxxxx>  |  Enterprise Content Delivery
617-250-3028        |  Akamai Technologies