Stef@NRTC.NORTHROP.COM (Einar Stefferud) (09/15/88)
Hello Ruediger -- I don't quite follow all the turns in your last paragraph. > ... > Anyway the argument of having it understandable by software is still > a strong one. Therefore I don't see a better compromise than the > DRAFT/2 of the suggested recommendation. It is also a quite natural one, > which will not make "mappings" necessary. It is very very close to RFC987, > and the differences are both well considered and not confusing. We agree that use in software is a strong argument. But then, how is DRAFT/2 which is not useable in UNIX a good compromise? Can you list the specific differences between DRAFT/2 and RFC987? As I recall, "Very Very Close" only counts in three games: Horseshoes, Grenades, and Atomic Bombs ... Are we now saying that a little ambiguity is fine in ORAddresses? Cheers...\Stef
huitema@jerry.inria.Fr (Christian Huitema) (09/15/88)
Hey, Ruediger, it seems that you are killing your own case when you write: > and can, of course, be left out. The notation can be > C=gb; A=GOLD 400; P=UK.AC; O=UCL; S=Master; G=Peter as well as > C=gb;A=GOLD 400;P=UK.AC;O=UCL;S=Master;G=Peter. > (In other cases, this might be a help) Just look at the end of your example. What tells me that the Given Name is: "G=Peter as well as" or "G=Peter as well" or "G=Peter as" or "G=Peter" or "G=Peter." Seems that we need some precision, here... Christian Huitema