From: Henry Spencer (henry@spsystems.net)
Date: Wed Mar 17 2004 - 12:29:40 CST
On Wed, 17 Mar 2004, Bruce Lilly wrote:
> > It is not at all helpful for you to misrepresent what the intended
> > Registry will do...
> > It DOES NOT mandate any particular definitions (because that is not what
> > IANA Registries are for), and it DOES make provision for different
> > protocols to define a given header differently.
>
> N.B. "discouraging multiple definitions of a header field name
> for different purposes" and "encouraging convergence of header
> field name usage across multiple applications".
However, "discouraging" and "encouraging" do not equal "prohibiting" and
"requiring". Charles is correct: the registry as defined *does* provide
for differences of opinion, and *does not* bless one particular version as
the only way to go.
There is nothing in the registry proposal which would empower it to refuse
to accept a second definition of Subject just because it already has one.
Henry Spencer
henry@spsystems.net