From: Forrest J. Cavalier III (forrest@mibsoftware.com)
Date: Mon Aug 16 2004 - 11:41:58 CDT
Charles Lindsey wrote:
> No, that is too wide. For a start, it implies no 'direction' (it would
> allow A to be a followup to B and B to be a followup to A).
>
>
> If you want a changed definition of "followup" (I don't, but some do",
Hey C'mon! Don't feed the trolls, OK?
> then what is wrong with the one I posted here on Aug 5 in your "webster"
> thread?
>
I did not receive any messages from you dated August 5, either directly or
through the list. There is no article from you to that thread (on any
date) in the August 2004 archive at rkive.landfield.com
Charles indicated he proposed this in that missing message:
> A "followup" is an article containing a response to the contents
> of an earlier article (its "precursor"), or which is otherwise
> intended to be grouped with that article for purposes of display
> (e.g. as part of a multipart posting such as a FAQ).
I would respond that "earlier" and "intent" were discussed to be
problematical for USEFOR for this header.
I note your "too wide" objection, about circular References, applies to this
as well.
Not only that, it is even "wider"! My proposal requires the followup
to be related, supplementary, or in response to. Your "intended
to be grouped" means whatever the author wants. Although it gives
an example of a use, it does not determine what should not be
"intended to be grouped." Do you find that advantageous?
I'll also restate what I posted in another message today. We are defining
what articles will include a References header. I do not agree
we are defining what it is supposed to point to.