Comments on Usage draft section 3.3.* ('The Well-Behaved Reading Agent')

From: Nick Boalch (n.g.boalch@durham.ac.uk)
Date: Wed Dec 03 2003 - 11:22:12 CST


Section 3.3.1.1 is quite equivocal on threading behaviour by reading agents.
If I read it correctly it loosely advocates an approach to threading that
combines comparison of Subject-headers and analysis of References-headers, but
doesn't do so clearly. For instance, we say that "it is not clear how changes
of Subject should be handled".

I'd be inclined to split the note here off into a separate section 3.3.1.2
(moving 'Summary' to 3.3.1.3) dealing with the References header, perhaps
something along the lines of:

        3.3.1.2. References

        Reading agents may use analysis of the References-header as a more
        robust alternative to the Subject-header for presenting lists of
        articles in threads. This approach has much to commend it; in
        particular it avoids reliance on the correct usage of "Re: ".
        
        However, even References-headers can be incorrectly set by some
        non-compliant agents, and threading on the References-header may
        leave it unclear how changes of Subject should be handled. Given
        this, the functionality of threading behaviour is left to the
        preference of individual implementors.

Section 3.3.2.1 has "estanlished" for "established" in the third line of the
third paragraph.

Regards,

N.

-- 
Nick Boalch, Research Student
School of Modern European Languages         Tel: +44 (0) 191 334 5780
University of Durham                        Fax: +44 (0) 191 334 5770
New Elvet, Durham DH1 3JT, UK               WWW: http://nick.frejol.org/



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7.