From: Forrest J. Cavalier III (mibsoft@epix.net)
Date: Mon Aug 16 2004 - 09:39:51 CDT
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote:
> In <411D0F54.2050409@epix.net>, on 08/13/2004
> at 02:58 PM, "Forrest J. Cavalier III" <mibsoft@epix.net> said:
>
>
>>Any objections to this....?
>
>
>> A "followup" is a message which is related, supplementary, or
>> posted to respond to another message. A message includes a
>> References header if and only
>> if it is a followup.
>
>
> The problem with that is that part 1 of a FAQ is related to part 2,
> but we don't want part 1 to have a References header line with
> the id of part 2.
>
I understand USEFOR to document article format, so it isn't clear to me that
considering your point is necessary for USEFOR.
But I do want to understand why you suggest we prohibit part 1 having
a References header with the id of part 2. I don't think it should be
encouraged, but do you think problems would arise from it, or even from
having a circular chain of References?
Since articles can, and frequently do, post out of order, and multi-message
FAQs may be generated in arbitrary order (consider a FAQ generator that
splits parts 2-N and then generates part 1 table of contents) I think
defining followup based on any time-dependence is a bad idea. So, what
could we say?