Hehe SitG, why didnt you answer the rest of the questions? You didn't even copy them. Jumped the gun heh??<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 8:58 PM, SitG Admin <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:sysadmin@shadowsinthegarden.com">sysadmin@shadowsinthegarden.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div class="im"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Why are you guys so stuck up on allowing XRD's with no Subject?<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
Well, actually, that's already the plan; so, the onus is on *you*, then, as the person with a new idea, to explain why it should be otherwise. So, why are YOU so stuck up?<div class="im"><br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
If you really want to do that, why don't you allow for an "Anonymous XRD" who's Subject is empty?<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
Why require all XRD's to have a Subject field, if it can be empty? Can't it just be omitted entirely, saving bandwidth from transmitting an extra 19 (plus whitespace) bytes?<br>
<br>
If it can be empty, it can be omitted - as I've said before, the lack of a field can implicitly be taken as the emptiness of a field.<br>
<br>
-Shade<br>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><a href="http://hi.im/santosh">http://hi.im/santosh</a><br><br><br>