Tony Green wrote:
On 24/04/2006, at 8:28 AM, O Plameras wrote:
Tony Green wrote:
On 24/04/2006, at 7:53 AM, O Plameras wrote:
This is not true that you can use gobbledegook in a DN. That's the
reason for the SCHEMAS and RFCs, to keep DN etc in line with
standards. There
are two standards X.500 and IETF. You use anything else then you don't
obey the standards at the perils of having errors in your LDAP
implementations.
Can doesn't mean should. You CAN use anything in your DN, I've done
it and it works [1]. That doesn't mean that you SHOULD use it.
I did not say "you CAN'T".
You didn't say "you can't" you said "This is not true that you can".
Right that's what I said. "This is not true that you can" does not
translate to
"you cannot. It means "you can or you cannot, make a choice". That's why the
explanation in my next sentence,
"You use anything else then you don't obey the standards at the perils
of having errors in your LDAP implementations".
In terms of the truth table,
Truth Table for statement: Can use goobledegook.
1. You can. (If false, does not mean you cannot;
it means either 2 or 3 below).
2. You cannot. (If false does not mean you can;
it means either 1 or 3)
3. You can or you cannot, make a choice. (If false,
means either 1 or 2 above but not both.).
I accept I reversed the modal verb and added a contraction, but the
sentiment of the sentence remains intact.
--Tony Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hope this helps.
O Plameras
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
