From: Eivind Tagseth (eivindt@multinet.no)
Date: Tue Jul 06 2004 - 03:08:16 CDT
* Charles Lindsey <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> [2004-07-05 18:44:48 +0000]:
> In <40E0C151.5030503@erols.com> Bruce Lilly <blilly@erols.com> writes:
>
> >Charles Lindsey wrote:
[ About dealing with "Re: " in the syntax/semantics document ]
> >> And I have drawn your attention to a message by our late chair, subsequent
> >> to all the ones you provided references to, which indicated clearly that
> >> dealing with "Re: " was still an unresolved issue at that time.
>
> >If you have done so, I'm sorry -- I haven't seen it. Could you please
> >supply a reference to that message so I can track down why I haven't
> >received it, and please also repeat the specific references (URL,
> >message-id, date/subject, or whatever) which you say you had provided.
>
> I would refer you to
>
> http://www.landfield.com/usefor/2003/Jun/0099.html
1) Clear: *No* mention of "Re: " should appear in the
syntax/semantics document.
> 0112.html
>Now, as to why it should be in the syntax, that's very simple:
>because that's the way it is actually treated in practice.
Sorry, this is a closed issue, as I said in point #1 of my message. I
can give you all sorts of examples of things that user agents treat
as syntactic in practice that are simply pretty good guesses on the
common structure of unstructured stuff. That doesn't alone make it a
candidate for inclusion in the syntax/semantics document, and it is
clear that we don't have consensus to put it in there.
> 0127.html
[Discussion of putting it in the syntax/semantics document is a
closed issue. Deleted.]
These messages seem quite clear to me when it comes to the syntax/semantics
document?
Eivind