[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Notation data language
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 (22.214.171.124 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 Shaw | Technical Lead
<dshaw@xxxxxxxxxx> | Enterprise Content Delivery
617-250-3028 | Akamai Technologies