[Top] [All Lists]

Re: X-* header fields

2004-01-18 09:21:17

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?

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>