[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

DEP5: Extra fields without ‘X-’ prefix?

Le Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 08:12:15PM +0000, Lars Wirzenius a écrit :
> The editorial changes, plus these two items, are the final things left
> for DEP5, except for the review for licenses, shortnames and SPDX
> compatibility.

Hi Lars,

I would like to discuss about the addition of ‘X-’ in front of extra fields.  I
proposed earlier to recommend against, Steve answered that he prefered to
simply remove the requirement.


In this thread, I refer to the Policy bug #521810. Here is a quote with I find

“RFC 822 used this same X- convention.  It is now widely recognized in the
e-mail standards community that it was a horrible idea that never should
have been introduced.  I'm fairly sure that if the IETF had it to do over
again, they would not introduce X- fields.  They turn out to cause way
more problems than they solve, force mass-renamings of fields once they
become official, and result in X-* headers persisting as quasi-standards
without ever being fully standardized because they can't be standardized
with the X-* prefix.”


Charles Plessy
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan

Reply to: