Text 5526, 61 rader
Skriven 2012-06-25 23:35:04 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
     Kommentar till en text av Maurice Kinal (1:261/38.9)
Ärende: a neat little test of utf-8
===================================
Hello Maurice,

On Monday June 25 2012 13:14, you wrote to me:

 MV>> It does not say that the level parameter may be ommited.

 MK> It also does not say that the level parameter is required.

Yes it does:

  The CHRS control line is formatted as follows:

  ^ACHRS: <identifier> <level>

If this was intended to mean that the level parameter is optional, we would
have encased it in square brackets or explicitly mentioned it.

 MK> What I zero in on

Yes, you zero in on what you can twist to fit what you want it to read and
ignore the rest.

As FTSC chairman and co-author of the document I tell you, you are wrong, the
level parameter is not optional.

 MK> is the line that states, "Some implementations do not add the <level>
 MK> field",

Yes and those implementations are not complient.

 MK>  as well as, "The recommended way of doing this is to ignore the level
 MK> parameter and only use the name of the identifier."

It offers a suggestion on how to deal with these non complient implementations.

 MK> Also I am reading that I fall into the "implementations that do not
 MK> add the <level> field" category which isn't discouraged by the
 MK> document in question and that given,

FTSC documents are guidelines for developers to make their stuff compatible
with each other.

They are not legal documents that expensive laywers use to find loopholes to
fit their client's aganda.

 MK> "In future the level parameter may become obsolete",

"in future" IOW no yet.

"May become obsolete" OTOH, it may not.

 MK> then I won't have to rewrite any code when that indeed
 MK> happens.  I fail to see what use it is.

Backward compatibility.


Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20110320
 * Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)