[Ltru] status of RFC 3066 or RFC 3066bis in relation to HTTP
mrc at CAC.Washington.EDU
Sat Mar 25 03:06:05 CET 2006
On Fri, 24 Mar 2006, Peter Constable wrote:
> One more time... If anyone is to be excessively pedantic about RFC 1766,
> then *far, far* more is allowed in a 1766 tag than is allowed under
> 3066bis -- under 1766, there is *very little* that can be assumed about
> the internal structure of tags. That doesn't in any way suggest
> abolishing subtags; it just means that if all you know is RFC 1766 then
> you don't know very much.
Peter, I think that you and I are loudly agreeing. The point is that
3066bis, which creates specifics, doesn't break 1766 software which did
not (could not) know about such specifics.
Therefore there is no problem.
-- Mark --
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.
More information about the Ietf-languages