From: Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz (Shmuel+gen@patriot.net)
Date: Mon Aug 02 2004 - 07:49:25 CDT
In <20040802030818.GA24297@dora.tertius.net.au>, on 08/02/2004
at 01:08 PM, Thorfinn <thorfinn@tertius.net.au> said:
>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.
No, the problem does not remain identical, because putting that
language in serves as a notice to correctly recognize the presence of
MIME parameters and ignore them, as opposed to interpreting them as
something other than MIME parameters.
>The same amount of software needs to change if a mythical future RFC
>desires such a thing, whether we say "MUST accept" or not.
No, as I've already explained.
>That mythical future RFC is going to have to deal with having a flag
>day, regardless of whether we say "MUST accept" or not.
Not unless it requires specific processing as a result of the new MIME
parameter.
>"MUST accept" is a completely null operation.
No. It implies changing the code to not break if there is a MIME
parameter.
>"MUST accept" is just plain meaningless,
No. See above.
>when any implementor can *and will* simply say, "right, I already
>accept the things, even though I don't parse them correctly".
If he parses them incorrectly then he's noncompliant. If he simply
ignores them then that is perfectly acceptable behavior.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
Atid/2 <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)