From: Charles Lindsey (chl@clerew.man.ac.uk)
Date: Mon Mar 29 2004 - 05:13:52 CST
In <200403261715.i2QHDcHd018343@jefferson.patriot.net> "Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz" <Shmuel+gen@patriot.net> writes:
>No, if we discuss the Ant:, Re: and Sv: hacks in the usage document,
>that doesn't alter the meaning of what we say in the defining
>documents. If we define the Subject: header field as an unstructured
>field provided by the user and, for a follow-up, defaulted to the
>subject of the predecessor, with an optional prefix, there is nothing
>ambiguous, vague or equivocal.
Which is precisely what my latest text does. Can I take it that you could
live with that text?
-- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk 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