From: Charles Lindsey (chl@clerew.man.ac.uk)
Date: Tue Aug 24 2004 - 08:46:36 CDT
In <20040824071130.GC9517@tagseth-trd.consultit.no> Eivind Tagseth <eivindt@multinet.no> writes:
>* Charles Lindsey <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> [2004-08-23 18:22:22 +0000]:
>> 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.
>Of course you can do that, unless you have a really strict definition of a
>followup.
But at the moment we do have a strict definition of a followup.
> You want to have this strict definition, while relaxing the
>definition of the protocol.
You can either relax the protocol (which I favour) or you can relax the
definition. What you cannot do is to do neither of those things. That is
all I was trying to say.
-- 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