On Thu, 20 May 2004, Stuart D. Gathman wrote:
On Thu, 20 May 2004, Meng Weng Wong wrote:
Yes, that's the plan. Publishers should keep publishing the existing
syntax if that works for them. If, one day, they need to say
something they can't say in the old syntax, they should be able to
upgrade to the XML version and all the clients out there should (in
theory) be able to understand the new stuff.
The current SPF syntax is just as extensible as XML. And smaller. And
IMHO more readable. If you can define new attributes for XML, you can
define new mechanisms for SPF.
There are number of advantages in how xml can be extended and that new
features that maybe needed might be quite complex in what kind of
parameters they need. On the other hand for simple things, XML is too
bulky and SPF records are smaller and better in that case.
From what I read, the proposal calls for first using XML if it exists and
if not using SPF record. I think this should be done different way without
requirying those who like SPF to completely change to XML to use new feature.
Instead do it simply by adding <spf v=1> macro to XML. Anything that is
within that macro is interprted same way as if it was direct SPF record.
When macro ends </spf> additional xml extensions can be added but thereafter
<spf> may appear again if desired.
--
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
william(_at_)elan(_dot_)net