From: Bill Davidsen (davidsen@prodigy.com)
Date: Fri Jun 01 2001 - 09:35:47 CDT
Kent Landfield <kent@landfield.com> wrote:
> # It is not up to us to define the Archive header with wording any
> # stronger than that of currently existing practice, and it is certainly
> # not up to us to use imperatives from 2119 stronger than MAY, as no
> # interoperability problems have been pointed out yet. I can accept the
> # Archive header if it is used with MAY or Ought. Other wordings will be
> # plain wrong.
>
> ??? First we can't and now we can if we use wording you approve ? I agree
> that it needs to be advisory and if that requires a wording change, OK,
> let's do it. That's the point of trying to reach a compromise. Much
> of this discussion is off base and leading nowhere.
If we say it doesn't mean anything, why have it? We don't have a section
which says archives MAY translate via AI to Latin, "that which is not
forbidden is allowed" applies here, I assume. A compliant archive SHOULD
honor the date= header option.
The whole issue of breaking existing archives is smoke and mirrors,
there are *zero* archives implementing the Archive header, so we can't
break them. And if they do implement it, we can specify that they SHOULD
bloody well respect the author's wishes! We have no justification for
anything stronger than SHOULD, but I don't see the argument that we need
anything weaker, either.
-- -bill davidsen (davidsen@prodigy.com) "The secret to procrastination is to put things off until the last possible moment - but no longer" -me