Paul Lussier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> And it should use XML. Any new standard these days has to use XML.
>> I'm pretty sure it's in the US Constitution at this point.
>
> Ahhh! But is the Constitution in XML?
No, but it wasn't Y2K compliant, either.
> Seeya,
> Paul
-derek
--
"Ben Scott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 10/19/06, mike ledoux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> You really should embed versioning information into the header,
>> so we know how to parse it. Also, the specification should be
>> extensible, with custom fields.
>
> And it should use XML. Any ne
On 10/19/06, mike ledoux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You really should embed versioning information into the header,
so we know how to parse it. Also, the specification should be
extensible, with custom fields.
And it should use XML. Any new standard these days has to use XML.
I'm pretty sure
"Ben Scott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 10/18/06, Paul Lussier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Dealing with consoles, xterms, and Xauthority
>> are highly encouraged, but not required.
>
> You should get X resources in there, too.
Well, if an implementor chose to be X compliant, one of the c
On 10/18/06, Paul Lussier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Dealing with consoles, xterms, and Xauthority
are highly encouraged, but not required.
You should get X resources in there, too.
P.S. This mail is X-Visually-Appealing-And-Easy-To-Sort-On header compliant.
You put the
list-of-identifyi
Brian Chabot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But what about requiring POSTERS to put that in there in order to be
> able to filter out spam at the server?
It is hereby decreed that all mail clients must add an
X-Visually-Appealing-And-Easy-To-Sort-On: header to outgoing mails
destined for the gnhlu
