Subject: Re: draft-ietf-conneg-feature-syntax-xx.txt

From: Graham Klyne <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 16:33:48 +0000

At 20:49 10/11/98 -0500, Al Gilman wrote:
>
>to follow up on what Graham Klyne said:
>
>> I have changed the -syntax- draft wording to reflect concerns
>> raised.  The changes are quite modest and do not justify
>> re-publication of the entire draft at this time, so I include
>> the proposed re-wording below.
>
>Sounds good.  Did you consider making an explicit statement that
>q=0 means categorically unacceptable?  Or do we leave
>applications free to decide how not-mentioned complares with q=0?

I omitted to consider that.

Personally, and in view of the discussion we have had, I would try to say
as little as possible about q-value semantics, to leave maximum flexibility
for future developments.

#g

------------
Graham Klyne
([email-masked])