From: Bill Davidsen (davidsen@tmr.com)
Date: Tue Aug 03 2004 - 09:39:41 CDT
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote:
> In <ceb1a0$qdm$1@gatekeeper.tmr.com>, on 07/29/2004
> at 10:32 AM, Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com> said:
>
>
>>I think that's splitting hairs, part 2 would not be posted were it
>>not for the existance of part 1.
>
>
> And part 1 would not be posted were it not for the existence of part
> 2.
>
>
>>Are you just clarifying the discussion,
>
>
> Yes.
>
>
>>If you want to suggest
>>a better phrase than "prompted" make a suggestion.
>
>
> I already have. So have others. Yet another try:
>
> A followup MUST have a References-header, an article that has a
> logical or chronological dependence on another article SHOULD have
> a References-header and an article that is not a followup and does
> not have a logical or chronological dependence on another article
> MUST NOT have a References-header.
>
This still seems to use "followup" to mean reply (as I proposed, a human
generated continuation of discussion on a topic). I really believe that
we should should define a followup as an article with a references
header, and then define what should be a followup.
Okay, now you see if I've said that:
A followup is an article with a References header citing another
article. The References header MUST be provided to indicate that an
article is a continuation of the discussion on the same topic as a
previous article, and SHOULD be provided to indicate a logical or
chronological dependence on another article.
Could we pass on discussion of MUST vs. anything else just long enough
to determine if these are the points we want to make? Please? The first
sentence describes what will be treated as a followup by existing
software, then the rest describes when that treatment is desirable.
--
-bill davidsen (davidsen@tmr.com)
"The secret to procrastination is to put things off until the
last possible moment - but no longer" -me