Mark Crispin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 23 Mar 2004, Paul Jarc wrote: >> Wouldn't it be reasonable to say "the server can give a NO response >> in these conditions, but still must support these features"? > > Decades of unfortunate experience with cretins who think that they can > implement whatever they damn well please suggests otherwise.
Is it necessary to cater to the cretins? Can't we let them deal with their own problems? It seems those who violated the standard are being rewarded by requiring the rest of the world to accommodate them. >> Why would a client interpret NO as a signal that it should do the >> parsing itself? > > That was the very thing that the original message in this thread > suggested! But that was about "NO [PARSE]" specifically, wasn't it? I was talking about NO in general. > If the server says that the message is there, then the client has a > reasonable expectation that it can fetch it. Isn't it also reasonable to expect that things might change over time? paul
