At 11.21 +0000 02-02-08, Charles Lindsey wrote:
There are problems with that too. The header as proposed may be dumb. But
later someone else may want to revive the same header for a different
purpose, or even revive it for the same purpose, but with a less dumb
syntax and semantics.
I do not think there is any need to ever reuse a header which
is already used in dumb ways. It is not difficult to invent
a new header for a slightly revised task, to avoid the
problem of collission with the existing header name.
Language is rich!
--
Jacob Palme <jpalme(_at_)dsv(_dot_)su(_dot_)se> (Stockholm University and KTH)
for more info see URL: http://www.dsv.su.se/jpalme/