From: Eivind Tagseth (eivindt@multinet.no)
Date: Tue Aug 17 2004 - 02:22:24 CDT
* Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de> [2004-08-17 02:04:50 +0200]:
> Bill Davidsen wrote:
>
> > you open the door to (a) a post with a references header
> > which is not a followup (what, then, is it?
>
> It could be the intended begin of a new thread. Or just the
> literal meaning of "reference" (a pointer, See-Also). Or a
> "multi-parented" reply (2822 In-Reply-To).
Which you really wouldn't want, because it would cause most newsreaders
to organize it within the See-Also-article's thread, and I don't think
that's desireable.
Today, the References header is used to indicate that this article is
a direct followup to the last MID in the header and that that article is
a descendant from the second to last MID, which is a descendant to ...
It is not used to indicate a pointer to another article and it is not
used to indicate a multi-parented reply.
I see multi-part FAQs as a special kind of followups, some people don't.
They _are_ multiple articles intended to be organized/displayed/given the
appearance as if they were followups in a discussion.
See-Also and In-Reply-To would be valid in news, so we should be careful
not to give (explicit or implicit) the References header meaning that overlap
these.
We should just keep it clear and simple. Keep the definition of References
as it is today, keep the definition of followup as it is today (or make
it more clear), and move the multi-part-controversy into USEAGE --
e.g. make a section advising people to post multi-part messages (FAQs,
patch-sets, etc) as if they were followups in one discussion to simplify
finding, killing, scoring, etc.
Eivind