Re: Issues outstanding

["Charles Lindsey" <chl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

In <41C9AFEB.4050902@xxxxxxxxx> Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov-usefor@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

>Charles Lindsey wrote:

>>>>3. Mail-Copies-To and Posted-And Mailed
>>>>
>>Well the definition of these, should we retain them, is not in dispute (it
>>just codifies a moderately implemented existing practice). The texts
>>exist. It would cost 15 minutes of my time to remove them from USEPRO, or
>>15 minutes of Ken's time to add them to USEFOR, whichever we decide.
>>  
>>
>I agree.
>I just don't want to spend another few weeks debating the issue.

A quick head count, perhaps?

>>>6. Remove filename parameter from the Archive header.
>>
>I have not seen any argument in support of the "filename" parameter.
>If there is no support - we don't need to document it.

Well Dirk has just posted on this. Please do bear in mind that it is hard
to add new stuff to existing headers in the future if you do not make
provision at the start. That is the whole beauty of MIME-style parameters,
which have been very successful in allowing expansion of the Content-Type
header (though that beauty was indeed marred by the RFC 2231 mess).

>>>7. FWS issue in headers.
>>
>I was just thinking about recent discussion with Frank about mandatory 
>space after field names, etc.

I don't think there is any dispute about what is / is not to be allowed.
Just whether we try to express all the rules in the syntax. I have been
trying to explain why it is better left as it is.

-- 
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133   Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx      Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9      Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5