> Does anyone have any thoughts on my suggestion of replacing the
> last three chrs of a truncated message with "..."? I know we are
> meant me be documenting observed behaviour of the current format,
> but it could be added as a recommendation. I think data integrity
> is important and knowing a message has been truncated at a glance
> would be very helpful.
Personally, I think this is a good suggestion.
However, as I have learned form mine changing-the-protocol-ideas; it's
important to describe the current implementation. But that's is the
only "cons" I have.
Last, maybe instead of the an ambigenous "...", the more clear
"[TRUNCATED]" of (shorter) "[TRUNC]" can be used. Just a thought.
ALbert
P.S.
I drop my proposal to extent the number of facilities. This WG/draft
isn't the place. Youre all right. I was to fast:-)
---GAM
"This should be a jolly quote"
====
Do NOT send MS-Word or other MS-bits to me!
I can read them now, but I still don't like it.
