Nick Simicich <njs@scifi.squawk.com> wrote:
> >Why not put both into the same header (possibly folded across multiple
> >lines)?
>
> Because they might be added in different stages. I'll admit that I can't
> come up with a good reason for doing it now, but I do not see the problem
> with allowing for it as long as a program can parse any of the individual
> headers and come up with the same answer.
Unless there is a strong reason to allow multiple instances of the
same field-name, it just needlessly adds complexity to all programs
which parse the policy-specifications, because then if they want to
do something with the explanatory-text, they have to continue looking
till the end of the file, and if there are multiple relevant
policy-specifications, join all the explanatory-texts to form a longer
string.
> I am not sure how you stop your section from being encoded, except for not
> using 8 bit characters.
Good point; I'll try to remember that when I write the part about
where to put the policy-specifications.
Greetings, Norbert.
--
Founder & Steering Committee member of http://gnu.org/projects/dotgnu/
Norbert Bollow, Weidlistr.18, CH-8624 Gruet (near Zurich, Switzerland)
Tel +41 1 972 20 59 Fax +41 1 972 20 69 http://norbert.ch
List hosting with GNU Mailman on your own domain name http://cisto.com
References:
|
|
