Re: Issues remaining in Section 6

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

From: Charles Lindsey (chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk)
Date: Thu Oct 28 1999 - 03:41:00 CDT


In <v04210102b43d667ad69a@[216.229.13.10]> "G. James Berigan" <usefor@war-of-the-worlds.org> writes:

>>> 1. We do not allow any comment before the first product token. For
>>> example, you cannot say
>>>
>>> User-Agent: (yawn) Forte-Agent (shudder)
>>>
>>> on the grounds that there is supposed to be a convention that comments
>>> refer to the product-token immediately preceding. I could live without
>>> this (and leave it to common sense).

>> I have made this change.

>Um, I disagree with this. The comments were paired with the preceding
>product. What does a comment before the product mean? User-Agent is not
>for general comments.

I see no point in cluttering up the syntax with a different comment
convention than all other headers. The text suggests a sensible convention
to use (comment refers to the preceding token). Sensible users will do it
that way. Stupid users will always do stupid things whatever you say in
the standard. No harm will be done, except to expose their stupidity.

>I'll have to take a look at those. I object to the dropping of User-Agent:
>inews and User-Agent: telnet from the examples. We need at least one
>example of a version-less agent, and I think they are reasonable values for
>the header.

I have put the telnet example back.

-- 
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Email:     chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk  Web:   http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Voice/Fax: +44 161 437 4506      Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9     Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7  65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5


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


This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29.