From: Bill Davidsen (davidsen@tmr.com)
Date: Thu Aug 12 2004 - 09:42:16 CDT
Charles Lindsey wrote:
> In <Pine.LNX.4.53.0408090928150.13125@a.shell.peak.org> John Stanley <stanley@peak.org> writes:
>
>
>>Then we need not tell the followup agent that is it supposed to add this
>>header to the article. Yet, we do.
>
>
> But followup agents (at least the ones whose duties are set out in our
> present draft, and will continue to be set out in USEPRO) are not involved
> in the generation of multipart FAQs and the like (that would lead to some
> ridiculous outcomes, as I pointed out a couple of days ago).
>
> Which, to me, is a good argument for not regarding later parts of a FAQ as
> "followups", although I agree it _could_ be worded that way, and I have
> suggested a wording.
You continue to try to define a followup by use or intent. If you limit
the definition of a followup to the technical, a post with a references
header, you can then describe what should be a followup.
That way you completely avoid the idea of a post with a references
header which isn't a followup, there is a totally unambiguous way to
tell if it is or isn't.
--
-bill davidsen (davidsen@tmr.com)
"The secret to procrastination is to put things off until the
last possible moment - but no longer" -me