In <EOEBIJPEADOODFNEJPEGIEAKFBAA(_dot_)dwing(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com> "Dan Wing"
<dwing(_at_)Cisco(_dot_)COM> writes:
Any registration process needs to be similar, and describe the
various meanings. For example, "registering" the header "Precedence"
wouldn't be useful because its usage isn't fixed (some apps use
numeric, others use all sorts of text, and so on), so a "registration"
needs to acknowledge this fact.
But an RFC that defined Precedence properly, set out the approved usages
and deprecated the rest as obsolete might solve the problem. I think that
would gain more acceptance than defining Yet Another Header for the same
job (at least it would please some of the implementors, whereas a new one
would please non of them).
--
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