Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress writes:
> Let's try this:
> The "well-known" schema (let's say it's 'rec', for discussion sake) would be
> mandatory, that is, a client who claims to implement the extension must
> accept 'rec', no matter what it requests, and a server must support 'rec',
> no matter what else it supports.
> So lets say the controlled list consist of: 'rec', 'any', 'dc', 'rec2'
> So the parameter must be one of:
> In the first case, the server has to use 'rec'.
> In the second case, it could be 'rec', 'dc', or 'rec2'
> In the third case, it could be 'rec' or 'dc'
> In the fourth case, it could be 'rec' or 'rec2'
> I don't see how this could pose an interoperability problem, and I don't
> think there is a need to "explain' which are supported.
I suppose I have no _practical_ objection to this, since I will simply
ignore and make my servers suppport REC and my clients request REC. I
still object to it philoshophically, because it's dumb.
/o ) \/ Mike Taylor <[log in to unmask]> http://www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\ "24 hours in a day ... 24 beers in a case ... coincidence?" --