From: Charles Lindsey (chl@clerew.man.ac.uk)
Date: Mon Aug 23 2004 - 13:22:22 CDT
In <20040817072224.GB27760@tagseth-trd.consultit.no> Eivind Tagseth <eivindt@multinet.no> writes:
>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.
No, you can't do that, because using References for multi-part FAQs would
then violate a MUST in the References-header (and you cannot advise people
in USEAGE to do that). The minimal fix is to relax that MUST in the
References-header (which is what I have proposed). The same effect can be
achieved by altering the definition of 'followup'; some people seem to
prefer that.
-- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5