On Fri, 15 Nov 1991 11:33:27 +0100 you (Valdis Kletnieks) said:
I agree that the header-extension stuff needs to be carried forward.
Personally, unless somebody can supply a *good* technical reason why
it *has* to be coupled with RFC-XXXX, I'd prefer that it be chased in
a seperate document. I'd rather decouple the two issues, and get
RFC-XXXX *done*, so we can start deploying it while we haggle over
RFC-WWWW or whatever we end up calling it.
Personally, I think that it should *not* be thightly coupled with
RFC-XXXX. As long as it gets done someway...
Add me to the list calling for a seperate RFC-WWWW. Should we set up a
seperate mailing list for this? I'm willing to provide a home for it,
if a home is needed...
If and when RFC-XXXX gets done, the total traffic on the lists dealing
with message body extensions, message header extensions and SMTP exten-
sions might be small enough to warrant only one list for everything.
I would prefer to have only one list anyway. Let's decide that after
the IETF meeting.
Computer Systems Engineer
Virginia Polytechnic Institute
P.S. The last name, first 'e' should have a horizontal bar over it - said
bar was lost along the way because most data processing systems can't
handle the Latvian charset (as an aside - does anybody know if there's
an ISO-8859-X or other standard that addresses Latvian/Lithuanian charsets?)
ISO-8859-4 has 'E' and 'e' with a horizontal bar over them, in code posi-
tions 10/10 and 11/10 respectively. Latvian is mentioned on the front page.
"When in doubt -- hesitate!"