From: Charles Lindsey (chl@clerew.man.ac.uk)
Date: Fri Apr 23 2004 - 10:49:22 CDT
In <4087D7E0.5020108@erols.com> Bruce Lilly <blilly@erols.com> writes:
>Charles Lindsey wrote:
>> In <407DDDD7.9030005@erols.com> Bruce Lilly <blilly@erols.com> writes:
>>
>>
>>>>>The ABNF permits single-component newsgroup-names in the Newsgroups
>>>>>header field, i.e. it is syntactically legal.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>You take a very narrow view of the term "syntactically legal"
>>
>>
>>>No, I am pointing out the fact that the ABNF does not agree with the
>>>text of the draft. That discrepancy can and should be rectified.
>>
>>
>> If the text of the draft specifies addtional restrictions over and above
>> the syntax of some construct as defined by the ABNF, then the text of the
>> draft wins over the ABNF. To then say that "That illegal construct is
>> syntactically legal" is then mere sophistry.
>If there is a discrepancy, there is no "winner", there are only "losers".
>>>>That is exactly the sort of extension we might be able to make in the
>>>>future once we have established that MIME-style parameters are a feature
>>>>of all headers. But for the moment it is a recipe for causing all sorts of
>>>>presently working things to stop working.
>>
>>
>>>No, the proposal has nothing whatsoever to do with "MIME-style parameters".
>>>In fact, you have maintained that such parameters cannot be used with any
>>>field whose field body might contain email addresses, so effectively you
>>>have proved my earlier point that specifying such parameters in the syntax
>>>is a premature constraint on possible future directions.
>>
>>
>> That would not apply if the email address were to be included within some
>> parameter, as in
>>
>> Followup-To: poster; address="foo@example.com"
>There is no need for such contortions, as
> Followup-To: poster
>and
> Followup-To: foo@example.com
>are unambiguous. The first of those is legal and the second is less likely
>to cause problems than your example.
On the contrary, the second would cause problems if the address had a ";"
in it. Anyway, the point is moot because neither could be introduced onto
Usenet at the present time because of the need for backwards
compatibility.
>The draft introduces Mail-Copies-To, and there are conflicts in the
>specified usage. One method of eliminating the conflicts has been proposed.
>If you would like to propose an alternative, by all means do so.
What conflicts? I have already fixed the minor problem that you raised
earlier (see the new 8.6 Step 5).
-- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk 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