Subject: [Ltru] Re: Description field ordering

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 21:36:08 -0800

Frank Ellermann <nobody at xyzzy dot claranet dot de>

> I think I'm to some degree consistent.  But somebody claimed that
> being "consistent" actually means "closed mind" and "stubborn" :-)

Not fair.

--
Doug Ewell  *  Fullerton, California, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages

_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

---

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 21:56:34 -0800

If we're going to institute a Reference-Name field, whether or not its 
value is duplicated in a Description field, I'll need to know soon so I 
can build draft-4645bis accordingly.

---

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 13:01:17 -0800

I wrote:

> Problem 2:  Some parsers may not have been built to ignore 
> unrecognized tags, and may crash if we introduce *any* new field type. 
> I couldn't finding any wording in 4646 that parsers are supposed to do 
> this, although it's a good idea.

Obviously I meant it's a good idea to ignore unrecognized tags, not to 
crash!