Re: signatures vs sf-date

On Mon, Jan 23, 2023 at 4:09 PM Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
wrote:

> Bare items are simple; there's no optionality involved.
>
> What about a dictionary, where you're only looking for "x" (expected to
> be an integer), but the sender adds an extension parameter "y" as sf-date?
>
> A conforming parser (of the current spec) will reject the whole field
> value, and the recipient will not be able to see the value for "x".
>

Yeah, thats what happens in sfv, it fails the Dictionary parse and there's
no structured way to work around that :-(

Cheers,
Lucas