Re: empty quoted strings and other oddities

Bruce Lilly <blilly@erols.com> Thu, 03 October 2002 23:02 UTC

Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id g93N2hn24651 for ietf-822-bks; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 16:02:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.61]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g93N2gv24647 for <ietf-822@imc.org>; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 16:02:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 209-122-228-17.s952.apx1.nyw.ny.dialup.rcn.com ([209.122.228.17] helo=mail.blilly.com) by smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17xEzU-0003i1-00 for ietf-822@imc.org; Thu, 03 Oct 2002 19:02:44 -0400
Received: from mail.blilly.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.blilly.com with ESMTP id g93N2bII015428(8.12.3/8.12.3/SuSE Linux 0.6/2002-07-27 16:10:46); Thu, 3 Oct 2002 19:02:37 -0400
Received: from alex.blilly.com (alex.blilly.com [192.168.99.6]) by mail.blilly.com with ESMTP id g93N2ZmZ015427(8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit/2002-06-01 20:08:15); Thu, 3 Oct 2002 19:02:36 -0400
Message-ID: <3D9CCC8B.4010904@alex.blilly.com>
Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2002 19:02:35 -0400
From: Bruce Lilly <blilly@erols.com>
Reply-To: blilly@erols.com
Organization: Bruce Lilly
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.2a) Gecko/20020910
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, fr, ru, ja
MIME-Version: 1.0
CC: ietf-822@imc.org
Subject: Re: empty quoted strings and other oddities
References: <200210011513.g91FDk027592@astro.cs.utk.edu> <002001c26a0f$f05437a0$b7880fce@alice> <20021002163610.C1650@melkebalanse.gulbrandsen.priv.no>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavis-milter (http://amavis.org/)
Sender: owner-ietf-822@mail.imc.org
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-822/mail-archive/>
List-ID: <ietf-822.imc.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-822-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>

Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:

> Well, assume for the sake of argument that it's relevant. Is it also
> valuable enough to justify changing email after 25 years of production
> use, with a user base presumably in the hundreds of millions, using god
> knows how many thousands of different programs?
> 
> I personally think this particular syntax wart should've been killed at
> birth... but now it's too late.
[...]
> Each extra syntax check involves writing at least one more test in the
> code, at least two more test cases to verify the code's correctness, some
> documentation and some (UI and documentation) translations. And then
> there's the (slightly) increased cost of learning the code for the
> subsequent maintainers, and the UI for the users.

The suggestion was to relegate empty domain literals to an obs-
contruct, which means that parsing would not change, but it would
be come a MUST NOT generate construct.  There need not be any
syntax checks for any parser w.r.t. this issue; any software
generating a domain literal would need to take some appropriate
steps.

Moving it to obs- syntax doesn't kill it, but it does declare it
as a wart.