From: Bill Davidsen (davidsen@tmr.com)
Date: Fri Aug 13 2004 - 13:14:39 CDT
Bruce Lilly wrote:
> Bill Davidsen wrote:
>
>
>>I tried that, it seems only Shmuel liked it.An unambiguous definition
>>followed by a policy of what should be a followup.
>
>
> I'm not convinced that we need to define "a followup". We do need
> to define the syntax and semantics of the References header field
> (and should probably do likewise for In-Reply-To). Leaving aside
> the syntax ("[RFC 2822]"), the semantics are those of indicating
> relationships between messages (probably also "[RFC 2822]"). So
> there are messages with neither References nor In-Reply-To fields;
> those messages do not have any defined relationship to other
> messages (though perhaps one could stretch a bit and say that
> Supersedes and Control: cancel fields define a type of
> relationship...). And on the other hand, there are messages with
> either an In-Reply-To field or a References field; those messages
> do have a relationship to other messages. There is no difference
> in the way either set of messages is transported, stored, etc.;
> the only difference is a convention for display in some user
> agents. That's not an issue for either USEFOR or USEPRO, and
> is debatable for USEAGE (is it a "high-level" display issue or
> not?).
>
I'm in agreement with most of that. I think that we need to define
followup because it will be really dificult to have a cogent section on
References and In-Reply-To without that term.
It may be useful to define "reply" just to make it easier to
differentiate to the new reader the several ways to use the References
header. It is possible to avoid that definition, but it may result in
clumsy wording. No strong feeling that we need it, just that it could
contribute to clarity.
Since the only use of the References header (or common use) is in
threading for display, I think our inclusion of supporting context
information is appropriate.
--
-bill davidsen (davidsen@tmr.com)
"The secret to procrastination is to put things off until the
last possible moment - but no longer" -me