Bruce Lilly wrote:
Here's another take on the subject (I hope it doesn't open up several
cans
of worms, but here goes...)
X- is used as an indicator for experimental or private-use tags in
many places
in Internet message protocols other than field names. For example:
[...]
So what's so abhorrent about top-level X- fields (RFC 822) that
doesn't also apply to
charsets, media types, language tags, etc.?
I didn't intend that to stifle discussion, but I haven't seen any
responses from the anti-X-
community. I did intend it to be a moderately strong case in support of
X- fields (by
way of asking what's so bad about them that differs from charsets,
language tags, etc.).
I don't want to read too much into that dearth of responses -- any comments?