From: Charles Lindsey (chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk)
Date: Thu Sep 16 1999 - 04:37:59 CDT
In <7727B731843.AAA687A@isnmmp01.interpath.net> John Moreno <phenix@interpath.com> writes:
>There isn't an example for Replaces/Supersedes being used in the same
>article -- which, at least according to my reading, is what we are
>going to try to encourage/require people to do. I would suggest that
>it goes in section 6.16, but I guess it could go in 6.16.2.4.
Eh? I am not sure what you are getting at here. Or do you mean that the
examples should include both Replaces _and_ Supersedes headers as
recommended until Replaces is widely implemented?
BTW, Since
Replaces: <..........>; usage=replace
is equivalent to the present
Supersedes: <..........>
could we seriously consider adding the Mime-like "usage=..." to the
present Supersedes header? Yes that is not a nice thing to do to a
well-established existing header, but has anyone checked whether any
existing implementations would actually barf on it?
>
>> 3. Simplification of Content-Type discussion for Mime, addition of
>> Content-Disposition, and replacement of application/news-transmission
>> by message/news (to pacify the Mail gurus in IETF).
>Shouldn't there be a SHOULD in section 6.15.5 for including a
>Content-Disposition header? It's a SHOULD that it be obeyed, it ought
>to at least be a SHOULD that it be included.
No, I think the proper thing to do is to declare what the default is if it
is absent. You will see that I was rather vague on what the default should
be, since current practice is divided. I was hoping that one of you would
stick your neck out and recommend a more definite default for us to
specify.
-- 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