Re: the "Re:" (was Re: Differences between RFC 2822 and Usefor)

From: Pete Resnick (presnick@qualcomm.com)
Date: Thu May 01 2003 - 16:43:05 CDT


On 5/1/03 at 5:36 PM -0400, Henry Spencer wrote:

>On Thu, 1 May 2003, Pete Resnick wrote:
>>Given that this is dicussing the contents of a clearly unstructured
>>field, I think this belongs in USAGE and not in the syntax document.
>
>As proposed in March, there is no "syntax document". Document #1 is
>article format, "syntax and semantics".

I apologize for my imprecision. Since the content of the "Subject:"
field is unstructured (and therefore has no particular semantics), I
don't think the discussion of "Re: " belongs in the syntax and
semantics document.

>One could argue that "Re:" is part of the semantics of Subject.
>However, I am inclined to agree that it's a "soft" enough issue,
>sufficiently non-critical to interoperation, to belong in USEAGE
>(document #3).

I could be persuaded that the "MUST NOT use anything other than 'Re :
'" belongs in #2, but I agree that #3 is probably sufficient for both
issues.

-- 
Pete Resnick <mailto:presnick@qualcomm.com>
QUALCOMM Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7.