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 Jan 05 2001 - 04:14:12 CST


In <200101041843.NAA21700@darkstar.prodigy.com> davidsen@prodigy.com (Bill Davidsen) writes:

>> Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 11:03:02 +0000
>> From: "Clive D.W. Feather" <clive@demon.net>

>> >> X13 is no interoperability, so it must be Ought Not.
>> >
>> > Hmmm! More opinions? I left it as a SHOULD NOT because, although it is an
>> > act of the user's agent, and an overridable one at that, it does produce
>> > effects which are externally visible, and therefore of concern to people
>> > other than that user.
>>
>> I do feel that a signature is a separate part of the message, so this
>> should be a SHOULD NOT. However, I wouldn't die in the ditch for it.

> I've been lurking recently, but I agree that this SHOULD be the case,
>since including the sig is a user visible change. Um, at one time there
>was a reader which identified a sig with a /-- $/ regex, so even quoted
>sigs were treated as beginning of sig. Add the option to only display
>five lines of sig... SHOULD!

I now have 4 people for Ought and 4 for SHOULD on this one :-( .

So the status quo (SHOULD) will remain unless anyone else speaks up.

Most of the other issues I think I can now resolve based on what people
have been saying here.

-- 
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.