RE: [TBTF] proposed edits for incorporating conneg feature for HTTP binding

FWIW, given that I don't think in any way we limit ourselves by being
crisp in the binding, I would agree with the direction you indicate and
share the concern of defining interoperability. I think we have
existence proof that attachments can be added in a modular manner.

Henrik 

>Well, if the choice were mine alone I think I would still go with the 
>tighter definition of our binding.  At this point in the WG's 
>work, I can 
>compromise in the interest of moving forward.  Both positions 
>have been 
>clearly stated, and I do see merit in both.  I suggest we go with 
>whichever approach has a preponderance of support, which may 
>well be the 
>"looser" one.  Of course, if someone else has a lie-down-in-the-road 
>position either way, that needs to be resolved.  I don't, but 
>my feeling 
>is moderately strong, but I could well be wrong. 
>
>So I suggest we move ahead.