Re: Criticisms of vnd draft

On Wed, 17 Mar 1999, Ian King wrote:
> First, the vnd.* syntax uses the '.' as the separator for the keyword from
> the rest of the scheme text; the procedures draft says the separator should
> be a '-'.  We can either change the procedures draft to include '.', change
> the vnd draft to use '-', or admit that life isn't perfect.  I'm planning to
> do the third -- I'll add some text to the vnd draft stating that the '.' in
> the vnd syntax is historical, and is at variance with the procedures draft.

Seeing as the vnd syntax is in a draft and the procedures is also a draft,
it seems a bit silly to not make them agree (doesn't set too good an
example for others to follow for one thing).  I'd say that we should
really do one of the other two options.  Personally I'd go with the first
option unless this is an example of a fault with the procedures draft
(which I don't think it is is it?).  As they are both draft documents
there shouldn't be a problem with any existing implementations (on the
grounds of the old "be it on your own head if you implement from an I-D"
rule).

Tatty bye,

Jim'll