From: John Stanley (stanley@peak.org)
Date: Fri Aug 06 2004 - 00:13:16 CDT
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz (Shmuel+gen@patriot.net):
>No. The fact that you don't like, or don't understand,
I understand the proposed definition just fine, smartass, and the fact
I understand it is why I don't like it. The fact that it is a circular
definition is what makes it circular.
"A followup is an article with a References header" and then we
are told when that header MUST and SHOULD be provided.
This malarky leaves us with the problem that there can never be a
followup, since an article being created doesn't start with a References
header, and is thus not a followup, and thus doesn't need a References
header. See the nice circle? No, you probably don't.
What he have now is better that what was proposed. At least it defines
what a followup is, more than just "an article with a References header".
The existance of the References header is how one DETECTS a followup
once the article leaves the poster, not how one DEFINES it. Saying
otherwise is just silly.
Forrest J. Cavalier III (mibsoft@epix.net):
>Implicit definitions are confusing.
Sometimes. Sometimes not.
>Besides, "follow up" is defined as
>a verb at webster.com and our use should be consistent.
Unfortunately, we are using it as a noun, so I guess to be consistent, we
cannot use it to identify a type of article. But then, "follow up" has an
extra space.
>I do not know why the draft need rely on "implicit" definitions,
More straw men. Nobody has said it must, and in fact, the draft we have
does not. It is RFC1036 that contains the implicit definition. Our draft
has one that is pretty good, and prior suggestions to change it were
dismissed. We now have a new one. I note that we are no longer hearing the
nebulous "it might break something" objections anymore, so maybe it does
matter who makes the proposal and not what the proposal actually is.
The remaining proposals on the table deal with the section talking about
References; a proposal to make it useless being currently under
discussion.