On 1/2/04 at 11:14 AM -0500, Keith Moore wrote:
On 1/2/04 at 1:34 PM +0100, Simon Josefsson wrote:
Would 2822bis obsolete 822 fully?
2822 bis will not obsolete 822 in any event - 822 is still a full
Standard, while 2822 bis would only be Draft Standard. As a
practical matter, nothing can really obsolete 822 as long as people
still need to read old mail messages.
Uh, no. If we can get 2822bis to full Standard (which is the desired
intent), it should obsolete 822 in that it should contain all of the
grammar to read old messages. That was the intent of section 4 of
If so, I believe it should mention what happened to the X- header
prefix that was part of 822.
I don't think anyone would have a problem with a small note in the
"Changes to previous standards" section which says, "Some people
think X-* fields are bad, some think they are good, they were removed
from this document." For a fuller discussion, I think Keith is right
that we might consider a separate informational document.
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
QUALCOMM Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102