- From: Mike Taylor <mike@tecc.co.uk>
- Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 15:49:07 GMT
- To: rden@loc.gov
- CC: www-zig@w3.org
> Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 10:11:41 -0500 > From: Ray Denenberg <rden@loc.gov> > > Perhaps I missed something and if so please > refresh my memory: What is the objection to using > variants? The objection is simple this: we are not, in general, at liberty to do this with records because they are EXTERNALs, and therefore not specified by the standard. We will get away with it for some type of record, which are amenable to using different character sets; but if I define a new record type 1.2.840.10003.5.1000.169.1 which I specify as carrying an EBCDIC-encoded plain-text message, there is _nothing_ you can say in the protocol that will override that. My client will get a 1.2.840.10003.5.1000.169.1 object and quite rightly assume that it's using EBCDIC. _/|_ _______________________________________________________________ /o ) \/ Mike Taylor <mike@miketaylor.org.uk> www.miketaylor.org.uk )_v__/\ "St. Augustine [...] came up with the conclusion that the story in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 was not a simple historical sequence of events. It just couldn't be. It's not what the words meant. It just wasn't" -- Robert Bakker.
Received on Friday, 1 March 2002 10:49:16 UTC