From: John Stanley (stanley@peak.org)
Date: Mon Aug 09 2004 - 11:33:18 CDT
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz (Shmuel+gen@patriot.net):
>What gives you that idea? It strats with whatever the agent puts in it
>initially.
Were that true, then there would be none of this long-winded "copy" vs.
"taken from" discussion concerning things that are put into the article.
It starts with nothing. The "followup agent" "takes" things from the
parent. But if there is no References header, then it isn't a followup
according to this goofy new proposed definition, and thus no need for a
References header.
>If it is a folloup agent and is creating a response to
>another article then the new article *does* start with a References
>header field.
Then we need not tell the followup agent that is it supposed to add this
header to the article. Yet, we do.
>>See the nice circle?
>The one that exists only in your head?
Excuse me for thinking you were here for some serious reason. Did you miss
the point that the definition we have now is 1) actually a definition, and
2) better than this circular bit of nonsense? Do you have some response to
that?