From: Bill Davidsen (davidsen@tmr.com)
Date: Mon Aug 16 2004 - 18:07:55 CDT
Forrest J. Cavalier III wrote:
>> Being an untructing person I prefer to simply have an unambiguous test
>> to identify what is and isn't a followup. So the software can make a
>> positive identification, because computers are good at that, and
>> humans can read the standard and decide if an article should have a
>> references header. Humans are crappy at that, but we have nothing better.
>>
>
> Bill, I am with you on positive determination on received messages. So
> please tell me what you see as ambiguous about the phrasing "A message
> includes a References header if and only if it is a followup." Doesn't
> that give the recipient what they need to determine if a message is
> or is not a followup?
My objection is that the first sentence is the definition of a followup
as currently worded, rather than a description of what posts should be
made followups by the inclusion of the References header. How do you
feel about swapping the order of those sentences?
>
> Do you agree the standard must instruct the creation of messages, not
> just the reception? What is it you would say to the poster? Don't
> they need to determine if their message is a followup? They can't use
> your References test, since they are creating the message. (I think
> this is what Mr. Stanley means when he wrote about the PURPOSE, not
> the presence of the References header being the prime determining
> factor.)
I'm not making a subtle point clear here, and I apologise. it's a case
of what *is* a followup (ref hdr) vs. what *should be* a followup (the
class of posts you enumerated).
Here's an example of what I'm thinking, using most of your words:
A message includes a References header if and only if it is a
followup. A message which is related, supplementary, or posted to
respond to another message should be a followup.
Is that clearer (even if you don't agree ;-)?
--
-bill davidsen (davidsen@tmr.com)
"The secret to procrastination is to put things off until the
last possible moment - but no longer" -me