From: Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz (Shmuel+gen@patriot.net)
Date: Sun Aug 01 2004 - 12:39:31 CDT
In <cee37k$vmf$1@gatekeeper.tmr.com>, on 07/30/2004
at 02:30 PM, Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com> said:
>That's the desirable intent, but use of the term "subject" is likely
>to cause confusion. Is there some reason why it was used instead of
>"topic?" And if not, may I suggest that using topic would better
>denote the intent of the WG?
I concur; we should avoid the word "subject" when we are not referring
to the Subject header field. similarly for the names of other header
fields.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
Atid/2 <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)