A few isolated comments, on the theory that the large debates are raging
adequately and don't need additional help from me.
John has written his usual thought-provoking analysis :-). I'll only
comment on one portion:
RFC-XXXX's "Body-version" is an example of trying to do this essentially
transport job in the message format. You need a transport announcement to
guarantee that the message contains a Body-version field and that it needs
to be paid attention to.
I don't entirely agree with this point of view, but I see another problem
with Body-Version. In the main I think a version stamp is a *good* idea.
But since RFC-XXXX offers both subset compliance and full compliance, a UA
should be able to distinguish compliance with the RFC from this field.
Nathaniel, how about adding a RFC-XXXXs (for subset) token for this
purpose?
-jwn2
===============================================================
Duty is the sublimest word in our language. Do your duty in
all things. You cannot do more. You should never wish to do
less.
--- Robert E. Lee,
Inscribed beneath his bust in the Hall of Fame
===============================================================