From: Thorfinn (thorfinn@tertius.net.au)
Date: Sun Aug 01 2004 - 22:08:18 CDT
On Sun 01 Aug 2004 at 02:37:27PM -0300, in <200408012009.i71K9hfh016644@jefferson.patriot.net>,
"Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz" <Shmuel+gen@patriot.net> wrote:
> Thorfinn <thorfinn@tertius.net.au> said:
> >No, just a totally pointless one.
> Not pointless, because *IF* an RFC is accepted that adds a MIME
> parameter, having the requirement here will allow for a quicker
> phasein.
What quicker phasein? The situation remains identical - no software out
there parses the things, and no software out there will parse the
things, whether we say "MUST accept" or not.
The same amount of software needs to change if a mythical future RFC
desires such a thing, whether we say "MUST accept" or not.
That mythical future RFC is going to have to deal with having a flag
day, regardless of whether we say "MUST accept" or not. And that flag
day is *not* going to be moved any earlier, whether we say "MUST accept"
or not.
> >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.
> Not if some of the work has already been done as a result of this RFC.
"MUST accept" is a completely null operation. If we want to say "MUST
parse", that *might* have an actual effect on implementors, who might
look into including MIME parameter parsing. "MUST accept" is just plain
meaningless, when any implementor can *and will* simply say, "right, I
already accept the things, even though I don't parse them correctly".
And I, for one, do *not* want "MUST parse", and I haven't heard anyone
speak seriously on the subject in favour of it.
Later,
Thorf
-- <a href="http://tertius.net.au/~thorfinn">thorfinn@tertius.net.au</a> "How are you about not being paid by cool people, as opposed to not being paid by arseholes?" -- Skud)infotrope.net, to RevDrD <fun!thingy.apana.org.au>