In <171E417EF48FB54BA3C238F08C3EEF065A6FD6(_at_)df-benji(_dot_)dogfood> "Jeff
Stephenson" <jeffstep(_at_)EXCHANGE(_dot_)MICROSOFT(_dot_)com> writes:
So, separate from the fine-grained details, I would like to
propose that the split be between Standardized vs. Proprietary.
While many (perhaps most) of the entries in the non-standardized
category will indeed be purely proprietary, to me "proprietary" means
implemented by only a single MUA. It seems to me that there will also
be a significant number of non-standardized fields that are more widely
implemented and thus aren't strictly proprietary in my sense of that
word. I think that Standardized/Non-Standard is perhaps a better
distinction than Standardized/Proprietary.
I agree. "Proprietary" will be widely misunderstood (whether rightly or
wrongly so does not matter).
OTOH, "Informational" is not quite right either, because headers defined
in Informational RFCs (which are widely and permanently used, but don't
need to be standardised because there is no protocol involved and they
only apply to a limited class of objects, such as FAQs) may well get
promoted to the upper registry (or, at least, we should retain the option
to allow that at some future point, it not in this draft).
"Temporary" would but fine, but I still think "Provisional" is best.
--
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl(_at_)clw(_dot_)cs(_dot_)man(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk Snail: 5
Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5