Message-Id: <v04003a11b1387596c892@[130.237.150.138]>
In-Reply-To: <199803191959.OAA09778@CS.UTK.EDU>
References: Your message of "Thu, 19 Mar 1998 21:41:19 +0100."      
       <v04003a04b1372beb3642@[130.237.159.161]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 20:41:44 +0100
To: IETF working group on revision of mail standards <drums@cs.utk.edu>
From: Jacob Palme <jpalme@dsv.su.se>
Subject: Idea for a new solution of the X-headers dispute

Here is an idea for a new solution of the X-headers dispute.

Specify that if someone implements a header X-Foo, specify that such
an implementor should, on receipt, treat "X-Foo" and "Foo" as
synonyms. I.e., remove the "X-" before interpreting the header
field name.

If an "X-Foo" header field is made into an IETF standardized field "Foo",
and if "Foo" gets a very different function than "X-Foo", then implementors
can begin handling "Foo" and "X-Foo" as different headers at that time.

If this is done, we will be able, in the future, to migrate from X-Foo
to only Foo without any problem.

Note: This method cannot be applied to some existing headers, for
example "Sender" and "X-Sender". 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jacob Palme <jpalme@dsv.su.se> (Stockholm University and KTH)
for more info see URL: http://www.dsv.su.se/~jpalme