• From: Peter Flynn <peter@s...>
• To: xml-dev@l...
• Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2016 19:53:34 +0000

On 11/04/2016 03:54 PM, Michael Kay wrote:
[...]
> The spec is full of stuff like this:
> 
> Note: Some legacy implementations used the simple form where the
> addr-spec appears without the angle brackets, but included the name
> of the recipient in parentheses as a comment following the addr-spec.
> Since the meaning of the information in a comment is unspecified,
> implementations SHOULD use the full name-addr form of the mailbox,
> instead of the legacy form, to specify the display name associated
> with a mailbox.  Also, because some legacy implementations interpret
> the comment, comments generally SHOULD NOT be used in address fields
> to avoid confusing such implementations.

That's a model of clarity compared with what vendors did when they
*implemented* it in clients :-)

///Peter

• References:
  • Stick with XML ... JSON is a minefield of security risks andambiguities
    • From: "Costello, Roger L." <costello@m...>
  • Re: Stick with XML ... JSON is a minefield of securityrisks and ambiguities
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • Re: Stick with XML ... JSON is a minefield of security risks and ambiguities
    • From: Michael Kay <mike@s...>
  • RE: Stick with XML ... JSON is a minefield of securityrisks and ambiguities
    • From: "Costello, Roger L." <costello@m...>
  • Re: Stick with XML ... JSON is a minefield of security risks and ambiguities
    • From: Michael Kay <mike@s...>