From: Thorfinn (thorfinn@tertius.net.au)
Date: Sun Aug 01 2004 - 10:30:05 CDT
On Sat 31 Jul 2004 at 10:09:35PM -0300, in <200408010209.i7129ufh024258@jefferson.patriot.net>,
"Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz" <Shmuel+gen@patriot.net> wrote:
> Thorfinn <thorfinn@tertius.net.au> said:
> >What testable constraints? "Accept" is a fairly meaningless word.
> >It just means "read the header and don't blow up". Just about
> >*anything* "accepts" MIME parameters.
> In which case it is not a burdensome requirement.
No, just a totally pointless one.
> >That's not the same as doing "the right thing" with MIME parameters.
> >For that, you want "MUST parse", not "MUST accept".
> Irrelevant, because until there is an RFC defining a new MIME
> parameter, the "right thing" *IS* "read the header and don't blow up".
I dunno about you, but I find the idea of putting in a pointless
requirement that is trivially satisfied by doing nothing, rather, erm...
pointless.
If a future RFC wants to define a MIME parameter for an existing header,
that future RFC will have *exactly the same problem with getting
accepted and parsed correctly*, whether we say "MUST accept" or not in
*this* RFC.
That's my point - whether we say "MUST accept" or not, makes *absolutely
no difference*. Why waste words and space?
Later,
Thorf
--
<a href="http://tertius.net.au/~thorfinn">thorfinn@tertius.net.au</a>
Real Time, adj.: Here and now, as opposed to fake time,
which only occurs there and then.
-- BSD fortune file