In <a05100301b889b7fe37f6(_at_)[216(_dot_)43(_dot_)25(_dot_)67]> Pete Resnick
<presnick(_at_)qualcomm(_dot_)com> writes:
And if 3 or 4 sites want to use Counter-Argument-To amongst
themselves for a very special purpose and make it
X-Counter-Argument-To, and then it does catch on worldwide because
slowly 500 sites and 10 MUA writers all implement it, we are again
stuck with a non-standardizable field name because they decided to
start it with an X. What is the HARM of not just calling it
Counter-Argument-To from the get-go?????
We are stuck in that situation at the moment. The whole idea of this
proposal is to get us out of that situation. However, it may sometimes
fail (something that was originally intended to be kept under tight
control escapes into the wild). That should be rare, but will be
unavoidable; it will still be an improvement on the present situation.
--
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