[Top] [All Lists]

Re: BATV pseudo-Last Call

2008-05-19 04:19:56

Dave Crocker wrote:

So let's hear what constraints and requirements folks deem
essential for this meta-syntax, and why.  And given that the spec
already has a proposal, I'll suggest that anyone claiming it is not
sufficient would help things a lot by explaining why.

In general, the draft misses clear indications and guidelines for the implementation. There is not even a single example. Let me quote an implementor's perspective: "People should be able to take 5 minutes of their time to briefly look through the document, see exactly what's going on. Make it crystal clear, right up front, how you go about to implement this, and leave the technical details and dry, formal specifications, to some other part of the document."

Another point: Is it useful to retrieve the untagged mailbox value? (E.g. could that be a way to patch, say, ezmlm?) If it is, it would be helpful to have a syntax that delivers a good level of confidence that a given token is a BATV-tagged representation of some tagging scheme even if that was not known at implementation time. Should the tag-types be loadable at runtime from some configuration file? Are they case sensitive?