I don't think it's reasonable to debate the need for MIME-Version. It is
obvious to me, for reasons others have stated well already, that having a
version number is a Good Thing.
The needed debate is more along the lines of clarifying how it is to be
used, and it's good that this is happening. Please continue with this
discussion. Clarification should NOT, in my opinion, cause any delay in
its progressing along the standards track.
What *would* (and should) cause a delay is a proposal running about the back
of my mind of making MIME-Version be a list of keywords. Each keyword would
indicate a MIME extension being used in that message. This allows for different
growth paths than a simple linear ordering. But I can't see enough need
for non-linear growth paths, so ....
Frankly I don't have much patience for the excuse that someones code would
die horribly if MIME-Version != "1.0". Sounds to me like lazy coding practices
and a fix that can be hidden in a maintainence release. What should've been
OBVIOUS from the context of a "version number" with a form like "1.0" is
that other values were highly possible.
<- David Herron <david(_at_)twg(_dot_)com> (work)
<david(_at_)davids(_dot_)mmdf(_dot_)com> (home)
<-
<-
<- Where su-b-tlety is taken to an art!