Re: [urn] A 'newbie' question on the terminology used in RFCs
Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Wed, 25 January 2012 12:47 UTC
Return-Path: <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
X-Original-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4A8021F8621 for <urn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 04:47:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.449
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.850, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dlmy9eiJG9ed for <urn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 04:47:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net [213.165.64.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id BAFA821F8599 for <urn@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 04:47:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 25 Jan 2012 12:47:38 -0000
Received: from mail.greenbytes.de (EHLO [192.168.1.140]) [217.91.35.233] by mail.gmx.net (mp066) with SMTP; 25 Jan 2012 13:47:38 +0100
X-Authenticated: #1915285
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX19pk+k7UbJpG8rFYezy5p2ePyRkgde+N9GJ/Hefgk eS/GEPrqmvvSSU
Message-ID: <4F1FF9E2.7020800@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 13:47:30 +0100
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Juha Hakala <juha.hakala@helsinki.fi>
References: <201201241421.PAA01865@TR-Sys.de> <4F1FF692.4090700@helsinki.fi>
In-Reply-To: <4F1FF692.4090700@helsinki.fi>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
Cc: urn@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [urn] A 'newbie' question on the terminology used in RFCs
X-BeenThere: urn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about possible revisions to the definition of Uniform Resource Names <urn.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/urn>, <mailto:urn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/urn>
List-Post: <mailto:urn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:urn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/urn>, <mailto:urn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 12:47:41 -0000
On 2012-01-25 13:33, Juha Hakala wrote: > Hello, > > RFC 2119, which is the sole authority as regards this issue, uses > (certainly intentionally) both upper-case and lower-case versions of > these words, and these terms do have different semantics: > ... Again, reasonable people disagree on this, and you will questions about this again and again. The easiest fix is to avoid the issue by simply not using the lowercase variants. Best regards, Julian
- [urn] A 'newbie' question on the terminology used… Bengt Neiss
- Re: [urn] A 'newbie' question on the terminology … Julian Reschke
- Re: [urn] A 'newbie' question on the terminology … Alfred Hönes
- Re: [urn] A 'newbie' question on the terminology … Julian Reschke
- Re: [urn] A 'newbie' question on the terminology … Juha Hakala
- Re: [urn] A 'newbie' question on the terminology … Julian Reschke
- Re: [urn] A 'newbie' question on the terminology … Juha Hakala
- Re: [urn] A 'newbie' question on the terminology … Peter Saint-Andre