Re: New Internet Draft: draft-duerst-archived-at-00.txt

At 08:41 04/10/29, Bruce Lilly wrote:
 >On Thu October 28 2004 09:09, Graham Klyne wrote:
 >
 >> To paraphrase (British) parliament-speak:  I refer the gentleman to the
 >> answer given previously:
 >>    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2004Oct/0050.html
 >
 >That does not explain the utility of the particular structured
 >header field proposed (vs. e.g. an unstructured Comments field
 >or a parenthesized comment in e.g. the Message-ID field, or
 >text in a body part, etc., all of which would be at least as
 >usable for clickety-clickety or copy and paste).

It is clear (e.g. from Keith's comments) that there are usages
for both computers and humans. I think it's better to define
this as a structured field and end up with no machine use
than to define it as a Comments field and end up with
all kinds of incompatible formats and code trying to interpret
it if an when usage by machines catches up.


Regards,    Martin.