Brett Watson <famous-asrg(_at_)nutters(_dot_)org>:
Not that I've seen the "keywords" field used in practice, or used it myself
outside of obscure humour value in Usenet posts many years ago. But hey --
devil's advocate.
A fair point to raise. But I did consider it...and concluded that
Keywords is generally unused precisely *because* there are no global
conventions about ketyword meanings.
I see two possible ways around this. One is to define a specific new
field; the other is to make the keywords a bit more
specific. Obviously Eric was attempting to avoid defining new
fields, and that's a fair tack, but defining a new field is an
option. To make the keywords more specific, we could have
"can-spam-advertising" instead of just "advertising" (using
"can-spam-" as a namespace of sorts), to reduce the plausibility
that it will conflict with any existing usage.
I considered this, too -- in my first draft, it was "Content-keyword".
Since Keywords is both registered and unused, going with it seemed
liike the better approach. But I'm not strongly attached to this; my
mind could be changed.
On the matter of internationalisation, I would say that these are meant
primarily to be machine-readable tokens. The MUA can translate the tokens
into an appropriate natural language description or icon, etc.
That was my thinking, too; I should have mentioned it in the rationale.
--
<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond</a>
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg