From: Forrest J. Cavalier III (mibsoft@epix.net)
Date: Mon Aug 16 2004 - 11:18:45 CDT
Henry Spencer wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Aug 2004, Forrest J. Cavalier III wrote:
>
>>>The problem with that is that part 1 of a FAQ is related to part 2...
>>
>>I understand USEFOR to document article format, so it isn't clear to me that
>>considering your point is necessary for USEFOR.
>
>
> The format includes what the headers *mean*, so it's quite correct to ask
> when a References header is supposed to occur and what it is supposed to
> point to.
>
I guess I see this as akin to a "class" vs "instance" discussion.
We are defining what articles will include a References header. I do not agree
we are defining what it is supposed to point to. Let me be clear that the
content of the references header is not mentioned in the definition of followup
which I have proposed. This omission was intentional. Here is what I
proposed:
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.
I am not avoiding an argument by splitting hairs. Certainly USEFOR must specify
that the content is a list of one or more message IDs only. But for everything else
about what it is supposed to point to, is it not proper to defer to other documents?
Further, I am having trouble thinking of what will be "wrong" on the reading
agent when Part 1 has a References pointing to part 2. The author must have
had some reason for doing it that way, and the reading agent is going to
have a display order set by references which will probably match whatever
the author intended. It is a good example to consider, but the answer need not
change the definition I proposed for USEFOR.