From: Bill Davidsen (davidsen@prodigy.com)
Date: Wed Jan 02 2002 - 11:23:47 CST
On Mon, 31 Dec 2001, Brad Templeton wrote:
> The fact that the standard requires that unknown headers be ignored allows
> such experimentation, and it's good.
>
> The main point for me was that putting "X-" on the headers is a poor
> design, and should be removed from the standard. The standard can say
> nothing, or simply suggest the person wishing to define a new header go
> find the registry. (It need not even say where the registry is if we
> don't yet know. Any decent designer will know how to use google.)
I think trying to get rid of X- headers at this point would be a waste of
time and effort. They are existing practice, and I see absolutely no
benefit from taking the "we could have done that better" approach.
The benefit is, well, if you see some benefit from trying to change the
way things are done, let me know. The cost is that people will just make
up header names using no rules at all, won't understand registry, will
have no quick way to add a local header, etc.
In other words the horse is out of the barn, let's concentrate on things
with a better cost/benefit ratio.
-- -bill davidsen (davidsen@prodigy.com) "The secret to procrastination is to put things off until the last possible moment - but no longer" -me