I understand your view, and all things being equal, I agree with it. The basic "Be strict in what you send, lenient in what you accept" philosophy espoused by the late Jon Postel.
Right, this is a good way to state my thoughts as well.
Could/shoud we add this quote to the website and documentation in general that this is the approach we've used to do? There are so many places where we've had to interpret, I think it would be good for developers to see what we meant (irrespective of how the code came out).
This termination sequence is denoted as <CRLF> in this document. Conforming implementations MUST NOT recognize or generate any other character or character sequence as a line terminator.
Gotcha. I would suggest to build on Postel by saying:
- if the RFC says "the [sender] MUST/MUST NOT" [blah blah]," we should strive to be lenient.
- if the RFC says "the [receiver] MUST/MUST NOT [blah blah]," we should not be lenient.
Thanks for the clarification on the RFCs.
-- Serge Knystautas President Lokitech >> software . strategy . design >> http://www.lokitech.com p. 301.656.5501 e. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
