From: Bill Davidsen (davidsen@tmr.com)
Date: Wed Aug 25 2004 - 10:50:46 CDT
Charles Lindsey wrote:
> No, we have moved beyond that text now. The most recent text which I
> have published, based on a wording suggested by yourself, is the
> following:
>
> Articles which are followups MUST, and articles which are parts of
> multipart postings such as FAQs or are otherwise intended to be
> grouped together for purposes of display MAY, have a
> References-header.
You persist in trying to use "followup" for what I called "reply" and
you later in this post call a "response." If you want to use followup
this way, then let's make up a term to include all posts with a
References header, regardless of how or why it got there.
The rest of your message tries to get around this by redefining things
but still not having separate terms for all messages with References and
what you called a response.
Again I suggest that followup mean all such articles, and "why should
this be a followup?" be discussed elsewhere, since it doesn't impact
behavior.
>
> Where the meaning of "followups" is as defined in the present draft.
>
> Now if, instead of that, you prefer to change the definition of
> "followup" and leave the References-header text alone, then the
> wording needs to be broadly the same (because we are trying to capture
> the same intent regarding multipart FAQs etc). So the definition of
> "followup" would have to be something like:
>
> 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 think we have established by now that the two definitions are
> equivalent so far as defining the protocol is concerned. However, if
> the definition of followup is changed, then you have to look carefully
> at all the uses of that term in the draft to see if something has
> inadvertently got broken, and indeed there is, in the vary next
> paragraph. You now have to change the definiition of "followup agent"
> to the following:
>
> A "followup agent" is a combination of reading agent and posting
> agent that aids in the preparation and posting of such responses.
>
> Formerly it said "of followups", but if you don't change it then you
> will find that if the 1st part of that FAQ has a Followup-To-header
> pointing to a different set of Newsgroups,, then all the subsequent
> parts of the FAQ should be posted to the second set of Newsgroups, and
> not to the first.
>
> This shows the great danger of changing definitions of fundamental
> terms without being fully aware of the consequences. In this case, I
> don't think there are any further 'gotchas', but the new definition is
> still a pretty poor fit in many other places where the term is used.
>
> That is why I still prefer to change the wording in the
> References-header, because I am pretty sure there are no 'gotchas'
> hidden in there.
>
> Anyway, there are my proposed texts for the two methods of
> implementing this change. If we are agreed that those texts are
> satisfactory, then we can proceed to make a choice between them.
>
--
-bill davidsen (davidsen@tmr.com)
"The secret to procrastination is to put things off until the
last possible moment - but no longer" -me