> Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 09:40:37 -0400 > From: "Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress" <[log in to unmask]> > > From: "Robert Sanderson" <[log in to unmask]> > > We could change the semantics to: > > [...] > > I still feel strongly about overloading a parameter, which is why I > suggested a new parameter altogether. The problem with that is we > would have to wait until the next version. I agree that overloading parameters is bad. However -- (A) there is no parameter-overloading in my suggestion of using URIs constructed according to some documented scheme; (B) we have a well-defined extension mechanism so there would in any case be no reason to wait until v2. _/|_ ___________________________________________________________________ /o ) \/ Mike Taylor <[log in to unmask]> http://www.miketaylor.org.uk )_v__/\ "There is a huge switching cost to using a different operating system. It is this switching cost that has given customers the patience to stick with Windows through all our mistakes, our buggy drivers, our high TCO, our lack of a sexy version" -- Microsoft's C++ Manager Aaron Contorer, in a memo to Bill Gates.