I'm one of the biggest champions of a new message format, but I don't think this is necessary. As long as the format is text-based the on-the-wire stuff couldn't care less what the message actually is. Once higher-level tools are used to process the data, it should be patently clear to them what the format is. For example, if the new format is XML based, new-format messages might always start with <LOG> and end with </LOG>. Carson Gaspar wrote: > Perhaps the new protocol should have a message format ID field, with > mandatory support for a free-form text format. This would allow future > specifications of message formats, and interoperability between differing > versions thereof. > > -- > Carson Gaspar
begin:vcard n:Calabrese;Chris tel;work:201-703-7218 x-mozilla-html:TRUE org:Merck-Medco Managed Care, L.L.C.;Internet Infrastructure and Security adr:;;1900 Pollitt Drive;Fair Lawn;NJ;07410;USA version:2.1 email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] title:Internet Security Administrator fn:Chris Calabrese end:vcard
