Request for comments: Sorting fields in signature generation

Johannes Ernst at
Wed Sep 27 19:22:14 UTC 2006

On Sep 27, 2006, at 12:08, Marius Scurtescu wrote:

> On 27-Sep-06, at 11:10 AM, Johannes Ernst wrote:
>> On Sep 27, 2006, at 9:48, Granqvist, Hans wrote:
>>> Johannes, just to clarify, are you against allowing
>>> multiple same-name params?
>> I don't like multi-valued fields, because in my experience, it is  
>> a slippery slope that usually leads somewhere one does not want to  
>> end up. It tends to go like this:
> Multi-valued fields represent lists. Lists are very useful data  
> structures, and yes, lists can be misused/abused.

Now you are knocking down the wrong strawman. Just because there are  
examples where lists are useful, it does not mean that everything  
must be a list (which is how I understand the proposal -- "anything  
could be multi-valued").

By the way, I think you mean "set" not "list" because it was the lack  
of ordering in sets that caused you to start this thread.

> It is quite common (and natural) to use multi-valued fields for  
> check boxes and multi select list boxes.

Somebody else on this thread (forgot who, sorry 'bout that, too lazy  
to look it up) made the point before that GUI considerations should  
have little bearing on protocol design, and I agree with that comment.

Also notice that when holding a value in memory in software, multi- 
valued GUI fields usually get translated into booleans, because they  
are much easier to handle for many of the same reasons. The same  
should be possible here and is likely the better approach.

Johannes Ernst
NetMesh Inc.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: lid.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 973 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <>
-------------- next part --------------

More information about the specs mailing list