On 1/31/02 at 3:23 PM -0500, Keith Moore wrote:
I don't know where you get the idea that x-headers have been quite a
problem. As far as I can tell, they've been quite successful.
Offhand I cannot think of a single read/write X- field that has
become a de facto standard...
X-Priority immediately comes to mind. X-Face is another. And these
are perfect examples of the problem: They define perfectly useful or
interesting pieces of data, they are in widespread use, but the
format of the fields cannot be documented because some bozo chose to
name them with an X-. But even write-only fields are a problem: I
can't document for someone what exactly to put in X-Mailer because it
starts with an X-. That's a terrible state of affairs and a serious
problem.
...but I can think of several X- fields that are really bad ideas
and which should never have been deployed even in a single
implementation. But at least they're easily distinguished from
other fields. OTOH, most of the poorly designed fields that have
gained wide deployment don't start with X-.
But that's the point: You can't distinguish useful/good fields from
bogus/bad fields just by seeing if they start with an X-. And in
fact, if people would just register a field that they are about to
deploy, they would likely get some immediate feedback of its
boneheadedness when they go to document it.
pr
--
Pete Resnick <mailto:presnick(_at_)qualcomm(_dot_)com>
QUALCOMM Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102