At 08:41 04/10/29, Bruce Lilly wrote:
>On Thu October 28 2004 09:09, Graham Klyne wrote:
>
>> To paraphrase (British) parliament-speak: I refer the gentleman to the
>> answer given previously:
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2004Oct/0050.html
>
>That does not explain the utility of the particular structured
>header field proposed (vs. e.g. an unstructured Comments field
>or a parenthesized comment in e.g. the Message-ID field, or
>text in a body part, etc., all of which would be at least as
>usable for clickety-clickety or copy and paste).
It is clear (e.g. from Keith's comments) that there are usages
for both computers and humans. I think it's better to define
this as a structured field and end up with no machine use
than to define it as a Comments field and end up with
all kinds of incompatible formats and code trying to interpret
it if an when usage by machines catches up.
Regards, Martin.