no, I've read all the posts. none of them carry an argument why you need a new token and cannot do without. they just talk about what could be done with some header data,
but they do not state why the existing stuff isn't enough.
I understand that you really want that new token, but each time you want to add something to such a standard, you need to prove why it is needed and existing stuff isn't enough.
it is not up to me to prove the opposite.
we need to minimize the syntax, avoid clutter and save time.
and the existing syntax suffices to detect the end of the header.
so that's 4 arguments you need to counter.
there's a 5th: if you make the tag optional, the tools supporting it anyway need a fallback implementation for files not carrying that token. and that fallback implementation would exactly read as I wrote above. Thus, this code anyway needs to be written. Thus, you do not need the tag. The code already suffices.
but they do not state why the existing stuff isn't enough.
I understand that you really want that new token, but each time you want to add something to such a standard, you need to prove why it is needed and existing stuff isn't enough.
it is not up to me to prove the opposite.
we need to minimize the syntax, avoid clutter and save time.
and the existing syntax suffices to detect the end of the header.
so that's 4 arguments you need to counter.
there's a 5th: if you make the tag optional, the tools supporting it anyway need a fallback implementation for files not carrying that token. and that fallback implementation would exactly read as I wrote above. Thus, this code anyway needs to be written. Thus, you do not need the tag. The code already suffices.