> But since (I think) we have elected not to mandate an approach, and Bob has
> outlined what appears to be a simple way to allow (not require) machine
> readable information over mail-to, it seems unreasonable to preclude using
> this feature. Indeed, although I was among the first to say that I did not
> see a need for it, I see no reason not to allow it.
Good point, Bill. I guess the thing that many of us are worried about
is all the time it will take within the PWG to get this "standard"
crafted and published by the proponents of the idea.
Of course, that's certainly no reason to enforce a PWG position of
"Do NOT Do This". It's the fact that the discussions required to
"ratify" the proposal will consume precious cycles, with very little
If I were a professional standards writer, then I guess I, too, would
immediately get behind this "new" idea and put lots of cycles into it.
Funny how few profitable companies are willing to hire and support such
a professional, though. (But I digress...) ;-)