Re: #1047 Path field delimiters and syntax - status

[kaih@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Kai Henningsen)]

chl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Charles Lindsey)  wrote on 09.09.05 in <IMJy75.Kzu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

> In <9dTjm4yHw-B@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> kaih@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Kai Henningsen)
> writes:
>
> >chl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Charles Lindsey)  wrote on 05.09.05 in
> ><IMCwqG.3Bv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

> >>    3. Some other (arbitrary) name believed to be unique and registered
> >>       at least with all other news-servers sending articles directly to
> >>       the given one. This option SHOULD NOT be used unless the earlier
> >>       options are unavailable (e.g. because the server in question is
> >>       not connected to the Internet), or unless it is of longstanding
> >>       usage and cessation would be unduly disruptive, or unless one
> >>       of the earlier options is provided as well.
>
> One of my worries is that <bareword>s (as we seem to be calling case 3)
> will also need a syntax. Clearly it will not allow a ':' (that is where
> this whole argument started), but would it allow a domain-name, or even an
> IPv4Address (which would defeat the object of the proposed restriction)?
>
> Maybe a <bareword> should be defined as needing to contain at least one
> ALPHA.

Hmm.

I think the only place I've seen the term used before was in Perl, and so  
to me it suggests the syntax of a language identifier - that is, a letter  
followed by letters, digits, and underscores, and nothing else - and that  
includes no dots.

If that's not what we mean, I would very much prefer us using a different  
name for it.

MfG Kai