From: Charles Lindsey (chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk)
Date: Thu Oct 21 1999 - 14:04:57 CDT
In <FJyu3s.69y@clw.cs.man.ac.uk> John Moreno <phenix@interpath.com> writes:
>In general that sounds OK, but on looking at it all together, I'd like to
>see the whole section made a bit less verbose....
> Followup agents SHOULD NOT trim message identifiers out of a
> References header unless the number of message identifiers exceeds
> 21, at which time trimming SHOULD be done by removing sufficient
> identifiers, starting with the second, so as to bring the total down
> to 21.
OK, I'v done that (it applies to all the variants proposed).
>
> Trimming SHOULD be done by removing sufficient identifiers starting
> with the second so as to bring the total down to 21. However, it would
> be wrong to assume that References headers containing more than 21
> message identifiers will not occur.
>(and is there any reason why we can't use msg-id's in place of "message
>identifiers" and/or "identifiers"?)
If you use the name of the syntactic object <msg-id> then you are making a
statement about whether you are including the '<' ans '>' or not. And not
many people recognise 'msg-id' because it is hidden away inside the syntax
of [MESSFOR]. Again, if you say "Message-ID", then you are speaking of the
complete header. So I have systematically been using "message identifier"
(which [MESSFOR] also does) throughout the draft. Not so pretty, but the
pedants cannot fault it :-) .
-- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Email: chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Voice/Fax: +44 161 437 4506 Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5