Re: References definitions and capabilities

From: John Stanley (stanley@peak.org)
Date: Wed Aug 04 2004 - 15:04:46 CDT


Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz (Shmuel+gen@patriot.net):

>In <ceo7ij$mbp$1@gatekeeper.tmr.com>, on 08/03/2004
> at 10:39 AM, Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com> said:

>>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.

>That works for me.

So we remove the current definition and replace it with a circular one.

No, thanks. We can do better than that. What we already have is better
than that.




This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7.