From: John Stanley (stanley@peak.org)
Date: Wed Nov 14 2001 - 18:23:39 CST
Charles Lindsey (chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk):
> "Forrest J. Cavalier III" <mibsoft@epix.net> writes:
>>The semantics of "revise/repost" are to communicate it to only
>>those who have NOT seen the original. That's disastrous for
>>continuity.
>We have to assume that an article with 'repost' is indeed identical to its
>predecessor.
I don't know what you mean by "with repost", but we most certainly do NOT
assume that a reposted article is identical with its predecessor. The
whole point of this header was to allow people to CHANGE articles and
repost them.
And further, even if there is something called "repost" to be "with", it
is lunacy to assume that every reposted article is identical. "We" don't
have to make any such assumption.
If someone doesn't want to see a regularly reposted article, HE can assume
it hasn't changed and HE can killfile it. End of problem.
>Despite your protestations, there are still people posting to this
>discussion that they see a need for this sort of functionality,
I see more people saying this should not be in the draft than those saying
it should remain, and with the failure of anyone to prove that it SHOULD
be in the draft, there is no reason to keep it in.
>OTOH, when someone is proposing the removal of a feature already present
>in the draft, then the burden of proof is on the objectors.
Nonsense. Some editor makes up a new feature, puts in in the draft, and
suddenly the burden is to prove it should be removed? No, you probably
didn't come up with this useless and easily abused header by yourself, but
your statement doesn't limit itself to how something gets into the draft,
now does it? There is a reason this is called a "draft" -- and if at any
time a part of the draft no longer meets the burden of proof needed to
keep it in, it should be removed.
Every "proof" that this header is needed has been shot down. The burden is
on the people who want it left in to prove why it should remain despite
its lack of use, ease of abuse, and significantly better alternatives.