On Tue, 19 Jul 2011, Terry Manderson wrote:
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
That's the "mildly" part. George was speaking against file extensions at
all, you said they had "special meaning" and were in favor of a registry.
--Sandy, explaining a former message sent when speaking as wg chair
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
