From: Bruce Lilly (blilly@erols.com)
Date: Mon Feb 09 2004 - 21:47:53 CST
Charles Lindsey wrote:
> In <40246F6C.9010507@erols.com> Bruce Lilly <blilly@erols.com> writes:
>>That means that the syntax (if it claims the field is unstructured) contradicts
>>the normative text which requires treating the field as structured.
>
>
> But the syntax does NOT claim the field is "unstructured".
[...]
> To see that, you have to look at the accompanying semantics
[...]
> there are further rules for interpreting its meaning.
You missed several crucial points. First, the Subject field is defined
as unstructured, and the syntax corresponds to that definition. Second,
if the field is defined as unstructured and there are rules requiring
interpretation of its structure, the specification is badly broken.
>>We have already agreed that "Re: " is not a protocol issue, and therefore
>>is not part of the syntax.
>
>
> No, we have agreed no such thing. We (well, some of us) have agreed that
> it is not a matter for the syntax.
You're wrong. We specifically discussed the protocol issue and whether
or not there was any issue other than display. There isn't, and therefore
there is no protocol issue.
> Read what you have just written. You are implying that all protocols
> issues MUST be covered in syntax. If that is the case, then all semantic
> sections of all standards are entirely unnecessary and all IETF standards
> ever written are broken. I really don't think you want to stick your neck
> out *that* far :-) .
No, I've stated that if there is a discrepancy, at least one part of the
document is in error.
#################################################################
#################################################################
#################################################################
#####
#####
#####
#################################################################
#################################################################
#################################################################