On Wed, Nov 03, 2004 at 11:45:40AM -0500, Cyrus Daboo wrote:
If any document authors will not be at the meeting, either in person or via
jabber, could they please send me privately a summary of the state of their
document so I can present that as part of our discussions, thanks.
After the IETF, I plan to repost the "body" extension draft in
preparation to send it towards workgroup last call.
Two open issues:
- :binary. I added it in the last iteration, and now
yanked it out again. It's a neat hack, but I feel
like I can't make this work as a serious feature,
especially in connection with variables and
wilcard matches.
The hex space-separated hex pair values look ok to me,
graphically, but are unique in the E-mail world. Cyrus
suggested making them =-separated to allow reuse of
quoted-printable engines, but the format I was describing
is not _quite_ the same, I find =-separated hard to
read, and I think people will assume that where
quoted-printable works, there's a way of doing
base64-encoding, and now we're really getting ridiculous.
I don't like the ability my format adds to match against
single nybbles.
The main use of this - to match against virus signatures -
really is better served in virus scanners.
QUESTION: Are we okay with throwing out :binary, or
is someone using it for something worthwhile?
If we want to keep it, how strongly do we feel about
using a format that looks more like quoted-printable?
I say "lose it".
- In the unpublished version on disk now (and appended
to this message), I've added an explicit exemption from
the variable-setting side effect of matches. That makes
body much easier to implement, but I hate special
cases and this is one. We need to agree that we do
think the implementation cost of wildcard-matches with
variable-assignments in body is so high that we don't
want to do it.
QUESTION: Is it okay to have body :matches and
:regex scans not set variables?
I think this is a very good idea.
Ned