wayne wrote:
Is an extra byte per tag an important savings?
FWIW, "we" (TINW) have this:
key-value-list = key-value-pair *( ";" [CFWS] key-value-pair ) [";"]
In the worst cases that's a=b;d=e; or even a=b;(c)d=e;
In USEFOR "we" (another TINW) used a non-optional CFWS
to separate <msg-id1> <msg.id2> etc. in the References,
but that still allows <a(_at_)b>(c)<d(_at_)e>
Almost completely unrelated and just for a giggle, see
<http://mid.gmane.org/411DE4C0(_dot_)50BE(_at_)xyzzy(_dot_)claranet(_dot_)de>
Bye, Frank