Re: Some -15 comments

[David Shaw <dshaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 03:51:27AM +0100, Daniel A. Nagy wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 09:23:28PM -0500, David Shaw wrote:
> 
> > You would define a notation ("my-notation-name@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" or
> > the like), which is defined as "show me to a human".
> 
> Sure.
>  
> > You don't want to overload the human-readable flag for that, since
> > there are some human readable notations that while being *capable* of
> > being read by a human, aren't intended for reading by a human on a
> > regular basis.
> 
> I understand that and even agree with it in the light of the fact that
> there's already notation in wide use that is not intended for human
> interpretation. But I think that a flag indicating that some notation IS
> intended to be interpreted by humans is still warranted, using a wording
> similar to the original definition of the text flag, perhaps with some
> clarification added. Like this:
> 
>         First octet: 0x80 = displayable. This note value is text.
> 
>                      0x40 = human-readable. This note value is text, a
>                             note from one person to another, and need
>                             not have meaning to software. If critical,
>                             it MUST be displayed whenever the successful
>                             verification of the signature is reported to
>                             the user

I'm not sure what benefit this has over just defining a notation with
whatever semantics you desire.  This flag, in effect, lets someone
change the semantics of notations they do not own.

David