[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: bug ?

On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 01:18:43AM +1200, Perry Lorier wrote:
> > Until such a day where the big 4 can agree on an RFC, the only RFC which will 
> > be valid is RFC1459 as far as remaining compactible goes. Writing IRC clients 
> > today is basically hellish since no one stays fully true to RFC 1459, but 
> > otoh, the newer RFC's are network specific, hence are even less reliable to 
> > base anything on.
> 
> Even worse the newer RFC's don't actually state that they are network
> specific anywhere *AT ALL*.  If you read them you can be forgiven if you
> misunderstood that they were for all networks.

And you could be forgiven for thinking rfc1459 applies to any network >:)

> > Now, the day the big 4 can agree on an RFC, it will be raining fireballs from 
> > the skies, the atlantic ocean will part and you can walk across without 
> > getting your feet wet and so forth and so on.
> 
> heh, the big 4 have started talking, and 005 is a direct result of this,
> from what I know all the big 4 support 005 (to one degree or another).
> It's a long road, but the first steps have been made.

Somebody got ircnet to support 005 instead of the random stuff they
used to have? I thought they were stubbornly doing their own thing
still... (haven't been able to connect to ircnet in months, silly
ineptly paranoid server admins).

-- 
  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ | Dept. of Computing,
 `. `'                          | Imperial College,
   `-             -><-          | London, UK

PGP signature