Date: 26 Apr 1997 14:34:00 +0200
From: kai@khms.westfalen.de (Kai Henningsen)
To: drums@cs.utk.edu
Message-ID: <6VbyFGZUcsB@khms.westfalen.de>
In-Reply-To: <970425144235.ZM23504@candle.brasslantern.com>
Subject: Re: From the Chair: How Reply SHOULD Work
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Organization: Organisation? Me?! Are you kidding?
Comment: Unsolicited commercial mail will incur an US$100 handling fee per received mail.

schaefer@candle.brasslantern.com (Bart Schaefer)  wrote on 25.04.97 in <970425144235.ZM23504@candle.brasslantern.com>:

> My concern, as repeatedly stated, is that "what a UI should allow" is going
> to read as the rule for the ONLY thing a UI is permitted to do.  I don't
> want to hear "this breaks RFC X" when a client supports that AND something
> else.

I understand that. I still don't see how this fear is justified.

> } > } However, once you say that X and Y and Z are OK, you are, by
> } > implication } saying that everything else is not OK, or why wouldn't you
> } > have listed the } others too?
> } >
> } > Exactly.
> }
> } Sorry, but that's nonsense.
>
> It won't be nonsense to at least some of the readers of the spec, as this
> very discussion bears witness.
>
> } There are enough phrases like "at least" to
> } make clear that a required minimum is not an exclusive list of allowed
> } behaiour.
>
> That's fine, and that's what I'm in favor of.

Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. Either there is an obvious way to  
avoid the "no more than this" interpretation, or there isn't.


MfG Kai