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.
Valdis Kletnieks
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.
--Johnny
"When in doubt -- hesitate!"