> At Stephen Farrell's request, I'm responding with "> " line prefixes > on previous thread content.
Yeh, Outlook (and certain other clients, such as Lotus Notes) are particularly bad at cooperating with the Internet-style quoting, and it can get to be quite a mess as people with all different kinds of mail clients start intermixing responses. Waddyagonnado. Maybe we oughta make a standard...... > We can update the text to clarify that MIME type comparisons > are an exception to the "code unit by code unit" comparison rule. > The drafts will also be scrutinized for other possible occurrences > of exceptions to the default string comparison instructions. Finally, > we can add language to 7.1 about "unless otherwise noted for a > particular kind of string" so that it's clear that there are exceptions > to the rule. That should work, and I'll have a look at the final result. I'll note that Ted Lemon (I think it was he) suggested that the documents might leave the comparison text as is, and instead modify each place where case-insensitive comparisons are needed by requiring that those items be normalized to lower case (upper case would, of course, work as well). You might consider that, because it gets you out of the business of trying to specify how to do the comparisons. At some point, you might have other normalization and canonicalization issues, though I don't see any right now. If, for example, you might ever have a field value containing something like "kühl", you'll have to deal with two ways to represent the "ü" (as a single character, and as two (a "u" plus a combining umlaut)). It might be that that's never going to be an issue for the JW* stuff. But if it ever is (if there are ever such strings that might be typed in by users), it could be a problem. Barry _______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
