From: Boris 'pi' Piwinger (3.14@logic.univie.ac.at)
Date: Sun Apr 13 2003 - 08:54:57 CDT
Internet-Drafts@ietf.org wrote:
>A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-usefor-article-10.txt
I left this list a few years ago and could not image this
would lead anywhere. I a really pleased by that draft. It is
in excellent shape and I hope it will be an rfc soon.
I only have very few remarks:
>4.2.3. White Space and Continuations
>
> Each header is logically a single line of characters comprising the
> header-name, the colon with its following SP, the content, and any
> parameters. For convenience, however, the content and parameters can
> be "folded" into a multiple line representation by inserting a CRLF
> before any WSP contained within any FWS or CFWS (but not any other SP
> or HTAB) allowed by this standard. For example, the header:
> Approved: modname@modsite.example (Moderator of example.foo.bar)
> can be represented as:
> Approved: modname@modsite.example
> (Moderator of example.foo.bar)
This seems to be a bad example. As explained CRLF is
inserted, but actually also two additional spaces are added
in the example. Clearly, it does not hurt here, just for the
sake of correctness.
Since there has been confusion how to unfold correctly, this
could be made even more explicit here.
>5.4. Subject
> Followup agents MAY remove strings that are known to be used
> erroneously as back-reference (such as "Re(2): ", "Re:", "RE: ", or
> "Sv: ") from the Subject-content when composing the subject of a
> followup, and add a correct back-reference in front of the result.
Actually some program (Outlook Express) removes anything up
to a certain length followed by a colon (hence including
things *not* known as back-reference). Should this broken
behavior be mentioned, so that the above cannot be taken as
an argument for this broken implementation?
>5.4.1. Examples
>
> In the following examples, please note that only "Re: " is mandated
> by this standard. "was: " is a convention used by many English-
> speaking posters to signal a change in subject matter. Software can
> always recognize such changes from the References-header.
>
> Subject: Film at 11
> Subject: Re: Film at 11
> Subject: Godwin's law considered harmful (was: Film at 11)
> Subject: Godwin's law (was: Film at 11)
> Subject: Re: Godwin's law (was: Film at 11)
> Subject: Re: Godwin's law
Not only by English-speaking posters. Since several
newsreaders follow this and this is method is widely used,
it should be declared the official way to change the
subject. Further, the best practice to remove the (was: part
on the next followup should be suggested (hence the second
last example would be wrong). Like this (language to be
improved):
To signal a change in subject matter, it is good practice to
adjust the subject. This is done by writing the new topic
followed by " (was: " and the old subject (without "Re: "),
followed by ")". The part starting with " (was: " SHOULD be
removed for the next followup.
I don't understand the sentence " Software can always
recognize such changes from the References-header." Does
that mean that the software can determine that it is a
followup?
pi