In
<5(_dot_)1(_dot_)0(_dot_)14(_dot_)2(_dot_)20020204074603(_dot_)01afbed8(_at_)127(_dot_)0(_dot_)0(_dot_)1>
Dave Crocker <dcrocker(_at_)brandenburg(_dot_)com> writes:
hence, rather than "provisional" i suggest using the term "proprietary".
No, I don't think "proprietary" is right, because these things don't
always (or even usually) come from "vendors".
For example, if this provisional/whatever registry has been in existence
at the present time, then various header in the current Usefor draft would
have been in it, but I don't think Usefor would regard itself as a
"proprietor".
BTW, there is one Usefor header ("Replaces") that would have been placed
in the registry, and later removed (because we decided not to proceed with
it in the present draft).
--
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