>>> Hallvard B Furuseth email@example.com> 3/9/04 7:20:19 AM >>
>> 4.1.11. Controls
>> Additionally, unless order-dependent semantics are given in a
>> specification, the order of a combination of controls in the SEQUENCE
>> is ignored.
>This implies that controls (A, B) MUST behave identically with controls
>(B, A). I think it should be, "the effect of the ordering of a
>combination of controls in the SEQUENCE is unspecified"?
When the control specification doesn't describe these ordering semantics, interoperability problems arise where one server may arbitrarily assign semantics to the order of two controls, and another may not. Clients will come to expect behavior that is not specified.
Is there a reason for allowing order semantics as unspecified which outweighs the interoperability problems that come with it?