From: J.B. Moreno (planb@newsreaders.com)
Date: Thu Dec 28 2000 - 21:51:45 CST
On 12/28/00 8:28 PM, Russ Allbery at <rra@stanford.edu> wrote:
> J B Moreno <planb@newsreaders.com> writes:
>
>> Well, there's the heart of our disagreement (and thanks for helping
>> crystallize my thoughts). The sigdash IS a protocol statement: the end
>> of the portion of the body which should be automatically quoted in the
>> followup. It obviously has other uses, but that's it's main purpose.
>> And we should put it that way.
>
>> It's not something that is automatically added, or the is within 4 lines
>> of the bottom, it is a line consisting solely of "-- " and signals the
>> end of the portion that user wants to discuss.
>
> I have no problem with stating the meaning of the sigdash within the
> protocol.
Are you referring to what the sigdash means or what it consists of?
> I just think we should stop there, rather than go on to draw conclusions about
> the implications of this for the user interface of a followup agent, in large
> part because I think the latter discussion is out of scope for a protocol
> standard.
I'm fairly sure that you aren't agreeing with me here, but...without taking
prior comments into consideration, this seems to mean that we should say
what it is (syntax) and what it means (protocol) without saying that it
should be honored.
Without definition as to meaning, the syntax is pointless, if we give both
then a recommendation that it SHOULD be honored seems to be in order, but
not essential. And something I'd consider acceptable. Are we coming closer
to an agreement or not?
-- John Moreno