On Wed, 2005-06-22 at 00:59 +0200, Theo van Veen wrote:
> Perhaps it makes sense to have a list of "unregistered" or "unapproved"
> extensions on the same page that lists the registered extensions.
To clarify: if someone has gone to the trouble of writing up the
extension and telling us about it then it *is* registered. We explicitly
don't make any 'approval' of extensions that are registered, but we will
of course try to help anyone who is having difficulty to create the best
extension so that others will feel confident in using it as well.
> I agree with Peter that the lack of such an extension can be a
> showstopper and I agree with Ralph and and Rob that too much complexity
> can be a showstopper as well. Therefore we need to find the right
> balance between specifying what is part of the standard and publishing
> what is being used by individual implementors.
As in all cases, we should, in my opinion, draw up a list of the
functionality which is required but not present in the base protocol.
Then come to some agreement on how that should be expressed as an
extension. If there is interest in the future once it has been
implemented and tested as an extension, it can be migrated into the