Hai all,
Rainer made a proposition to rewrite the ABNF for the TAG last week.
I can see the reason for it, and the arguments -- other systems don't use "unix
(dos) slashes" (to make a very short abstract)-- are correct.
However, I would give nthe WG the following in consideration
* It is only a rewrite. The OLD and the NEW syntax allow both the
same TAGs, Yes the same strings. Only they breakup in other syntax
elements.
* For "other systems", the differance isn't that big.
-E.g. the Mac. Native it used the colon to separate a path. However, in
both the old and the new syntax, that isn't allowed in the TAG (exect
the specified place). So, the either have to use a short tag (as in
traditional syslog). Or convert the colon to something else. The already
do then, when netwerking/cooroparting with Unix/ Windows, ... So that
isn't complex.
But remember: the have to do one og both anywow. Both by the old syntax and
the new one!
-The same applies to other systems!
* In both the old and the new syntax, the path-part is a MUST. It is allowed.
However,
- The new syntax allows it, whil it allows "anything" in the progname part
- The old syntax suggest it, by using words as "path", path-sep
* We all algree, the using "the path (partually)" is better, it gives a
better hint on the programm being run.
- As the postfix examples show. That exta info is needed. The short hint
will suffixe to "know" which program it is, not the real sendmail but the
postfix one
Resume, I can live with the new syntax. The it doesn't add anything. And I like
the "hint on path" in the old one
ALbert
--ALbert Mietus, PTS Software BV
[EMAIL PROTECTED], for busnines mail
[EMAIL PROTECTED] for private mail
No SPAM please!
