In the same time, maybe the moment for BOSH HTTPS port. Regards,
BOCQUET Ludovic An XSF member XMPP Standards Foundation http://xmpp.org/ Le 24/09/2013 11:01, Alexey Melnikov a écrit : > On 23/09/2013 17:32, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >> On 9/23/13 10:03 AM, Dave Cridland wrote: >>> On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 4:50 PM, Peter Saint-Andre >>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>>> Many header fields include "[CWFS]" (folding whitespace with >>>> optional comments) instead of "[FWS]". For simplicity of parsing >>>> I would avoid using these, unless needed. But if you choose to >>>> use [CFWS], that would still be fine. >>> Personally I see no need to allow comments. Keep it simple. >>> >>> >>> Comments are traditional. Besides, we don't want just anyone able >>> to write a parser, so we? >>> >>> Seriously, comments aren't much of a bother to deal with unless >>> they're in the (like this) middle of something else you're trying >>> to parse, but on the other hand they rarely add value. >> Right. But if they're traditional, what is the traditional syntax to >> handle them? ;-) > > "[CFWS]" is what you use if you want comment. At least this way there > are plenty of parsers available for them. > > >
smime.p7s
Description: Signature cryptographique S/MIME
