On 7/30/07 at 11:32 AM +0000, Charles Lindsey wrote:
It would probably be helpful for a start to state clearly that what
is actually written in a domain literal (whether in an address or a
mesg-id) MUST/SHOULD agree with the specification of some widely
recognized numbering/routeing scheme (which, at the moment means IP4
or IP6 of course).
Why can't that be done in the documents which define where these
things get used, thereby limiting dependencies.
However, suppose some future addressing scheme _does_ admit quoted-pairs
First off, let's note that it is not the addressing scheme that
admits quoted pairs; it is the representation of those addresses in a
message. Things that interpret those addresses parse out the quoted
pairs (and square brackets and the CFWS for that matter) to get the
address.
That said, imagine that it makes perfect sense for a new addressing
scheme decides to use a special other than "." in a domain literal,
and it further turns out that parsers do bad jobs if those characters
are not quoted. We might want to encourage the use of quoted pairs in
those cases.
And again, I can't get all that excited (without some real examples)
about implementations that can't go through a text string and unquote
quoted pairs.
There undoubtedly exists software within Netnews that will break if
this SP is absent...
... since it is the invariable practice within email MUAs to include
this SP, putting such a MUST in email would incur no problems...
[and later]
There undoubtedly exists Netnews software which will break without
that whitespace...
Yes there are undoubtedly news implementation that would break in
that situation...
Undoubtedly? Invariable? Use of these words *increase* rather than
decrease my suspicion, and therefore my desire to leave things
exactly as they are now.
pr
--
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
QUALCOMM Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102