ietf-nntp PAT - it's ugly, lets leave it out of base NNTP

[Charles Lindsey]

In <14869.20752.36716.44773 at gargle.gargle.HOWL> Lee Kindness <lkindness at csl.co.uk> writes:

> 2. It has issues with OVER regards the handling of whitespace.

That is a matter we have to resolve within OVER.

>Why don't we leave PAT/XPAT out of the new specification? This is an
>option since it's not in RFC-977. Otherwise the new specification will 
>never see the light of day!

>PAT could then be documented as an NNTP extension. Is PAT even needed?
>Is it widely used?

It seems that XPAT is used quite a lot. PAT was supposed to be its
replacement, to do the same think but with the 'X' stripped off as we did
with XOVER. I still think it needs doing. It would be a pity if it was not
compatible with the old XPAT, but the problems to doing it that way seem
to be growing daily :-( .

-- 
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Email:     chl at clw.cs.man.ac.uk  Web:   http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Voice/Fax: +44 161 436 6131      Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9     Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5