Re: Section_7.02.02

New Message Reply About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

From: Brad Templeton (brad@main.templetons.com)
Date: Wed Nov 10 1999 - 12:07:18 CST


On Wed, Nov 10, 1999 at 10:42:14AM +0000, Charles Lindsey wrote:
> In <19991109135850.51245@main.templetons.com> Brad Templeton <brad@main.templetons.com> writes:
>
>
> >On Tue, Nov 09, 1999 at 04:12:12PM -0500, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> >> > mvgroup src=old.group; dest=new.group
> >> > mvgroup src=old.group.*; dest=new.group.*
> >> > mvgroup src=old.group.*; dest=new.group
> >> > mvgroup src=old.group.g1,old.group.g2; dest=new.group
> >> > mvgroup src=old.group; dest=new.group; +alias
> >> >
> >> > Easy to extend, self documenting. What's to oppose?
> >>
> >> Let's see, the more complex parsing?
>
> >If you think that's particularly complex, I'm surprised, but the point is
> >it's standard, same as all other such headers, so you are supposed to already
> >have a parser.
>
> No it isn't standard. That "+alias" is not in any known Mime syntax, nor
> is it in our proposed header syntax (the one which MUST be accepted, but
> not USED until the world has caught up).

Oh, sorry. My error on that one. Just writing the way I always do things
which is + and - for binary options, = for value options, which is a step
above MIME. MIME would end up with the ugly "flag=alias" but it's
not as bad as having more positional parameters.


New Message Reply About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view


This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29.