hehehe! an rfc for rfc terminology - i love it! ;-)
cheers, Mike. +--------------------------------------------------------------+ | Turn on your Revenue Stream... | | Bolt on a Virtual Cash Register to your e-commerce site now. | | VeriPay from Xilo Online: http://www.xilo.com/veripay | +--------------------------------------------------------------+ > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Sean A > Corfield > Sent: Thursday, 29 April 2004 5:48 AM > To: CFAussie Mailing List > Subject: [cfaussie] Re: [OT] cgi standards = was RE: Testing for HTTPS > > > On Apr 28, 2004, at 4:58 AM, Mike Everest wrote: > > not really, afaik there's no real 'standard' as such. > there's an RFC, > > but > > with a name like 'request for comment' even that can hardly > be called a > > standard! ;-) even rfcs as a defacto 'standard approach' > to internet > > systems often allow for liberal application of developer > > interpretation by > > adopting terms like 'should' and 'may' instead of 'must' and 'will' > > See RFC 2119 for a definition of 'should' and 'may': > > http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt > > Note that 'should' and 'must' are very different. Also note > that 'will' > is not an acceptable term for RFCs. > > Yes, I am a pedant. That's what happens when you spend nearly > a decade > working on ANSI and ISO standards committees (in my case, C++). > > Regards, > Sean > > > --- > You are currently subscribed to cfaussie as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To unsubscribe send a blank email to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > MXDU2004 + Macromedia DevCon AsiaPac + Sydney, Australia > http://www.mxdu.com/ + 24-25 February, 2004 --- You are currently subscribed to cfaussie as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] MXDU2004 + Macromedia DevCon AsiaPac + Sydney, Australia http://www.mxdu.com/ + 24-25 February, 2004
