On Thu, Aug 22, 2002 at 05:30:11PM -0400, Venna, Nagarjuna wrote:
> Just because an implementation does something, that doesn't make it right.
Just because it's not right, that doesn't mean that another
implementation can necessarily, in practice, usefully refuse to accept
what the not-strictly-following-the-spec implementation sends.
> I tried to write a SDP parser as specified in RFC 2327 and I'm yet to see a
> single SDP that would parse correctly if the parser strictly implements the
> RFC.
Yup.
Hence, I don't see it as being particularly useful to refuse to treat
"m=" as "misplaced" if there's no "t=" entry.
> What Ethereal was doing was to show attributes in the right place as
> misplaced and all I tried to do is fix that with minimal code changes.
Unfortunately, your code changes meant that the Quicktime SDP data in
question would display the "m=" stuff as misplaced rather than as a
media description.
> I
> agree with you that all one would care about is whether an attribute is a
> session level attribute or a media level attribute, butI also think Ethereal
> should not show a correctly written SDP as having "misplaced" attributes.
I checked in a fix, which is in 0.9.6, which involved equally minimal
code changes, which doesn't show correctly written SDP descriptions as
having misplaced attributes, but which also doesn't show the
technically-illegal-according-to-RFC-2327-but-common-and-they-probably-
work-in-practice Quicktime SDP descriptions as having misplaced
attributes.
