At Mon, 3 Aug 2015 16:16:22 -0400, Sandra Murphy wrote:
On Jul 30, 2015, at 11:51 AM, Rob Austein <sra(_at_)hactrn(_dot_)net> wrote:
I prefer Richard's option 2 (allow but do not require linebreaks),
which is what RFC 6490 RP implementations had to support anyway.
Richard?s option 2 allows insertion of line breaks in a TAL.
Should we add a ?Relying parties MUST ignore line breaks/whitespace? as well?
Writer being allowed to insert whitespace rather strongly implies that
reader must cope with said whitespace, so seem unnecessary, but if
saying this explicitly makes people feel better, sure, whatever.
Richard?s message agrees that everyone?s relying party code he?s
looked at does that anyway.
Yep.