From: Bruce Lilly (blilly@erols.com)
Date: Sun Aug 01 2004 - 14:21:30 CDT
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote:
> In <4109BA38.6080504@erols.com>, on 07/29/2004
> at 11:02 PM, Bruce Lilly <blilly@erols.com> said:
>
>
>>No it is not.
>
>
> Do you have the remotest idea what a non sequitor is?
I know very well what it means.
> The phrase
> refers to a claim that one thing follows from another when in fact it
> does not. It has nothing to do with whether the second claim is
> plasible or true.
To recap the recent conversation (since you seem to have felt it
necessary to snip everything so that you could assert a claim of
non-sequitur):
Shmuel:
>Failure to provide syntax is not the same as precluding the syntax in
> a subsequent RFC.
Bruce:
>failing to provide for so-called MIME parameters in
>>non-MIME fields does not preclude adding the syntax in a future RFC.
There's no non-sequitur there. There simply is no need at this time
to introduce new, incompatible syntax. Not only is there no need,
backwards compatibility -- a key point in the charter of the WG -- is
a strong argument against such an introduction.