Subject: Extension mechanism/support

From: Tim Showalter <[email-masked]>
Date: 20 Jan 1998 00:02:56 -0500

Recent opinion seems to indicate that
(1) support is not useful, and
(2) that a list of required extensions should be stated at the top of a
    script.

I believe that I should
(a) remove support from the draft
(b) replace it with some syntax that puts the extensions in some other (as
    yet undefined) form.

I like this, and I'd like to move forward with it if we have consensus on
it.

If this is not the case, please speak up.  (If it is the case, please wait
until everyone agrees and we can move on to figuring out what (b) means.)

-- 
                                          Tim Showalter [email-masked]

---

From: Ned Freed <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 01:13:37 -0800 (PST)

> until everyone agrees and we can move on to figuring out what (b) means.)

I think this is exactly the right way to proceed.

				Ned

---

From: Tim Showalter <[email-masked]>
Date: 20 Jan 1998 05:32:06 -0500

Addendum: I don't want to squelch debate on extension stuff, or to claim
consensus on it, I just want to move the parts that we agree on out of
discussion.

Flame away.