On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 03:51:27AM +0100, Daniel A. Nagy wrote:
On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 09:23:28PM -0500, David Shaw wrote:
You would define a notation ("my-notation-name(_at_)epointsystem(_dot_)org"
the like), which is defined as "show me to a human".
You don't want to overload the human-readable flag for that, since
there are some human readable notations that while being *capable* of
being read by a human, aren't intended for reading by a human on a
I understand that and even agree with it in the light of the fact that
there's already notation in wide use that is not intended for human
interpretation. But I think that a flag indicating that some notation IS
intended to be interpreted by humans is still warranted, using a wording
similar to the original definition of the text flag, perhaps with some
clarification added. Like this:
First octet: 0x80 = displayable. This note value is text.
0x40 = human-readable. This note value is text, a
note from one person to another, and need
not have meaning to software. If critical,
it MUST be displayed whenever the successful
verification of the signature is reported to
I'm not sure what benefit this has over just defining a notation with
whatever semantics you desire. This flag, in effect, lets someone
change the semantics of notations they do not own.