Re: header syntax.

Every implementation supports any number of trailing hashes. What's
the point on removing something that is already widely supported? I
have been following every  mail on the list and still don't
understand...

On 22 November 2012 22:41, marbux <marbux@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 3:20 PM, Max Albrecht <1@178.is> wrote:
>>
>> On 22 Nov 2012, at 23:39, marbux <marbux@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> A somewhat different approach
>> when implementations' markup differs
>>
>>
>> It has already been established[1] that the implementation DON'T differ.
>> There are all in line with the spec in regard to the headers.
>>
>> Why should a new spec differ from all that?
>
> Sorry, I should have been more clear. My point was in regarding to the
> preceding discussion in the last few posts of whether to support hash
> marks trailing headers and if so, how many.
>
> Paul
>



-- 
Pablo Olmos de Aguilera Corradini - @PaBLoX
http://www.glatelier.org/
http://about.me/pablox/
http://www.linkedin.com/in/pablooda/
Linux User: #456971 - http://counter.li.org/

Received on Friday, 23 November 2012 03:25:49 UTC