[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: reserved requests, cord message names
> ok; there seems to be some agreement this is a good idea. if so, i'm
> willing to put it in... i'm not comfortable with the name, however.
Me either, but...
> the message should either be a special format (like #$#*) or be in the
> mcp- namespace, obviously.
> #$#> 3210953 msg: ...
> the reason for the latter is mostly 'cause it seems like for something
> like this you want behavior similar to the behavior on multiline value
> lines; that is, i think you want the bulk of the message to be opaque
> to the parser to avoid having to worry about silly quoting issues just
> to get a line of text across.
On the other hand, if you're using a special format instead of a message, then
it seems to me you've eliminated the point of creating a message equivalent to
unmarked text. Unless, in fact, you have the unmarked text, AND the message
equivalent, AND the special format.
I think if you're concerned about quoting issues, you can just send it
unquoted--like, REALLY unquoted, like, no #$#anything. The idea of the
#$#text-line (or whatever) message, as I see it, is primarily for the sake of
> another, smaller issue: it's been a while; does anyone seriously
> object to my prefixing the #$#cord* messages with mcp- ?
Why? It's just another protocol, isn't it?