On Wed, Dec 05, 2001 at 02:26:18PM -0800, Jon Callas wrote:
You are right, the human-readable flag applies to the data, not the name.
I'll add in what you wanted, to make it clearer.
As for the name -- well, I have no idea.
I have an intuitive sense of what human readable means for the value. For
example, "I have read this document, but do not agree with much of its
content, call or email for long-winded details" is a fine human-readable
notation, and one of the purposes it's there for. I can even understand
that the semantic content of that note can be put in any arbitrary language
and encoded in whatever alphabets in unicode, and it's still "human
readable" even if that human better speak Esperanto.
I'm not currently generating notations - the question arose from an
implementation choice on whether to print all names even if I could
not print all values. If I was generating notations, I'd use the
2440bis method - it provides the happy accident of looking like an
email address so you can be contacted by someone who wants to add
support for the private tag to their implementation.
When I read the draft, I assumed human-readable meant that the data
was able to be shown to a human being without special processing.
Something close to "if I can printf() it, it's human readable" (of
course there is UTF8, but I think you get my drift).
David
--
David Shaw | Technical Lead
<dshaw(_at_)akamai(_dot_)com> | Enterprise Content Delivery
617-250-3028 | Akamai Technologies