Re: no names allowed, we serve types only

Keith H Duggar wrote:

>You think my proposal does not allow you to uniquely address header
>attributes? I think you need to try again, perhaps with less of a
>focus on "telling us" what sets and ordered pairs are.

Perhaps it would help if you explain what a 'copied type' is and how 'copying types' is more convenient than ordering or naming different attributes with the same type.

>KHD

-- 
Reinier