On 20/07/11 1:02 AM, "Sandra Murphy" <sandra.mur...@sparta.com> wrote:
> > There was a brief discussion of the use of file names extensions when the > repos-struct document came up for last call. See the following messages: > > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sidr/current/msg02281.html > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sidr/current/msg02282.html > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sidr/current/msg02283.html > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sidr/current/msg02284.html > > To summarize: George Michaelson spoke against extensions when we were > considering a registry (and Terry mildly supports them), I asked George if What I said was "and hint nicely". So happy to see it as the hint. That hasn't changed, and create a registry if you so desire. I'm still not comfortable in leading to a point where it is the way (and it seems only way) an objects validation regime is chosen. Rob's observation that the extension exists in the manifest file name is a close approximation provided words exist as highlighted which gives clear instruction to implementers as to 1) make the first approximation of validation regime on the filename in the _manifest_ 2) then try all others 3) give up. T. _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list sidr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
