Re: "Ought"

New Message Reply About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

From: Charles Lindsey (chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk)
Date: Fri Dec 29 2000 - 12:20:40 CST


In <ylsnn8gw26.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> writes:

>J B Moreno <planb@newsreaders.com> writes:

>> If the reader (person) sees it and wants to address it, then some extra
>> steps (or at least different steps) have to be taken to make that
>> possible, but that is no different than asking what the zip code is or
>> who was the famous person that you are quoting in your sig was -- if the
>> user wants to comment upon the sig then he can do so, just as he can
>> comment upon your Organization header or anything else he wants to. But
>> in neither case should it be automatically included as part of the
>> quoted text.

>I'll pipe up on this one and say that I think this has no business
>whatsoever in this standard. This is a GNKSA thing.

We seem to have some strong opinions here. I have put you down as
prefering Ought to SHOULD (I think it has to be one or the other). More
opinions needed.

-- 
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: +44 161 436 6131      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


New Message Reply About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view


This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29.