* Philip Hazel wrote (07/11/05 10:01): > On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Chris Lear wrote:
>
>> So the error is misleading only in as much as it says there's been a
>> "violation" when perhaps there's only been an infringement that nobody
>> really has a good name for [implementation that doesn't quite do what it
>> SHOULD?].
>
> Quite.
>
>> It's nitpicking to object to the wording of the error. And it's probably
>> nitpicking to say that the RFC is internally inconsistent. But my guess
>> is that the subscribers to this list like a good nitpick more than the
>> average non-RFC-obsessive. I certainly do.
>
> Sigh. :-)
>
> Suggest me some wording, and I'll change it.
I don't think there's really anything wrong with the current wording.
Unless you want to start changing all your error messages to start with
"according to some interpretations of the RFCs..." of course :-)
[I didn't really mean to look like I was taking sides here, by the way]
