ietf-nntp Simplification of wildmat

[Clive D.W. Feather]

Russ Allbery said:
>>>   Same proposal with sets removed and [ and ] also forbidden.
> Yup, I think the simplification there is definitely worth it, for as
> frequently as character sets are used in practice.  The second is much
> shorter and easier to read.

Personally I prefer them to remain. However, it's not a big deal.

> I note that both of these support comma and negation, so I guess there's
> also a third proposal, namely to remove that as well from the wildmat
> description, ban ',' and '!', and describe the matching in the text of the
> one command that historically supports it.

There might be such a proposal, but I'm not writing it. I agree with those
who say that this should be part of the wildmat concept itself, rather
than having a hodgepodge where sometimes I can reject subsets and other
times I can't.

> I also agree with Andrew that if we keep comma and negation, we need to
> clearly note that this is a behavior change from the previous version of
> NNTP.

Are we doing that in the other places we're changing ?

> I think this is close to the last major outstanding issue.

Streaming ?
Reorganising the draft in a more sensible order ?
Changing the command descriptions to a consistent notation ?

[Are any of those "major" ?]

-- 
Clive D.W. Feather  | Work:  <clive at demon.net>   | Tel:  +44 20 8371 1138
Internet Expert     | Home:  <clive at davros.org>  | Fax:  +44 20 8371 1037
Demon Internet      | WWW: http://www.davros.org | DFax: +44 20 8371 4037
Thus plc            |                            | Mobile: +44 7973 377646