Hello Derek,
Monday, June 19, 2000, 12:44:11 PM, you wrote:
DJB> At 10:55 AM 6/19/00 -0700, William X. Walsh wrote:
>>Fine, then you can add additional sanity checking that conforms to
>>your narrow view of what should or should not be accepted, and the
>>system can be set to accept a lower standard for those of us that
>>choose to implement it.
DJB> s/your/his and the STANDARDS community's/
s/STANDARD community/overly rigid/ :)
>>Bottom line, it can be both ways. You want to hold yourself and your
>>customers to a higher standard, you are still free to do so, without
>>forcing your view on the rest of us.
DJB> Agreed. You're more than free to design whatever incompatible systems you
DJB> want. However, OpenSRS should be releasing code that conforms to the
DJB> established standards. If you - on your own - want to write something that
DJB> is technically broken and call it 'a-ok', that's your own look-out.
The issue here is what the OpenSRS server will accept. The code
should be the broadest possible implementation of what the server will
accept, and if someone wants to modify it to be more restrictive than
what the server will accept, they are free to. If the server will
accept it, the code should reflect that.
Now the final question, will OpenSRS let the server accept those
addresses? I believe that someone already said yes, but I may be
wrong.
-- Best regards, William mailto:william@userfriendly.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Tue Oct 19 2004 - 23:35:38 EDT