From: Brad Templeton (brad@templetons.com)
Date: Thu Mar 02 2000 - 19:41:59 CST
On Thu, Mar 02, 2000 at 12:33:35PM +0000, Charles Lindsey wrote:
> In <874sarxlvt.fsf@erlenstar.demon.co.uk> Andrew Gierth <andrew@erlenstar.demon.co.uk> writes:
> When we last discussed this, we ruled out replace-in-place (if someone
> figures out a neat way to do it that way, then good luck to him, but we do
> not require anything that forces that implementation). The low water mark
> was the main show stopper IIRC.
I was beginning to believe that by defining the xref requirement you even
wanted to forbid replace-in-place. I'm fine with the system having the
option of either.
In fact, it's not out of the question to do replace-in-place for short
term replacements (ie. I update a typo in an article) and Supersede-with-xref
for long term replacements (ie. weekly posting.)
One could even have a flag on the replaces command, or simply say to use
replace-in-place when the original number is not "too far" (your choice)
from the end and use xref otherwise.
Or pick just one as you choose.
The reason for this complexity remains that users of existing newsreaders
get the benefit of replacement when it comes to rapid updates, ie. updates
within say half of typical expiry time. They don't see the minor updates,
which is the whole point.
Otherwise, If I know everybody is going to see my update who has an old
newsreader, I am not going to post a minor correction. It's an annoyance
to them and an embarassment to me.