From: Bill Davidsen (davidsen@tmr.com)
Date: Tue Aug 03 2004 - 10:28:12 CDT
Bruce Lilly wrote:
> Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote:
>
>>In <41071505.4000605@erols.com>, on 07/27/2004
>> at 10:52 PM, Bruce Lilly <blilly@erols.com> said:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Therefore failing to provide for so-called MIME parameters in
>>>non-MIME fields does not preclude adding the syntax in a future RFC.
>>
>>
>>No. That's a non sequitor.
>
>
> No it is not. Not adding the syntax (which was not in RFC 850,
> RFC 1036, or news.txt.Z) does not preclude adding it in some future
> RFC.
>
>
>>However, the point of that language was not to make it possible, but
>>rather to permit a shorter time frame. If you are concerned about the
>>time frame for other possible extension mechanisms, then why not
>>identify the obstacles and propose language to remove those obstacles?
>
>
> I have, as have others. There is no obstacle to implementing new
> features via new header fields, which do not have the same problems
> w.r.t. existing software as the ill-advised, unprecedented proposed
> syntax (so-called "MIME parameters") which is at odds with WG consensus.
>
With which I heartily agree. We have enough issues with things we need,
let's not put things in the document which are not needed, or which
presuppose that some future solution is preferable to others, or
inevitable, or whatever justification is being used to add a feature
which may confuse existing software.
--
-bill davidsen (davidsen@tmr.com)
"The secret to procrastination is to put things off until the
last possible moment - but no longer" -me