On 4/2/05 6:14 PM, "Robert Sayre" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> leaving things as they are >> and deferring deciding how to handle aggregation would irreversibly >> enshrine HeadInEntry into the format, which all of the current >> organizational proposals are trying to replace. > > That's right. Besides, HeadInEntry is trivial to do as an extension, so > there's no reason to leave it in. +1 to HeadInEntry being removed from the 1.0 spec. e.
