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:
 > 
 > x-info-99-metadata=rec
 > x-info-99-metadata=any
 > x-info-99-metadata=dc
 > x-info-99-metadata=rec2
 > 
 > 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?" --
	 Steven Wright.