From: John Stanley (stanley@peak.org)
Date: Fri Jul 30 2004 - 13:54:56 CDT
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz (Shmuel+gen@patriot.net):
>And part 1 would not be posted were it not for the existence of part
>2.
That's a fascinating statement. Are you really saying that a FAQ which is
short enough to fit in one part will never be posted, because "part 1"
would not be posted were it not for the existance of a part 2?
>I already have. So have others. Yet another try:
> A followup MUST have a References-header, an article that has a
> logical or chronological dependence on another article SHOULD have
> a References-header and an article that is not a followup and does
> not have a logical or chronological dependence on another article
> MUST NOT have a References-header.
Same problems. New proposed texts should at least try to solve the
problems in the existing proposed text.
I would say that it must simpler to define "followup" as "article that is
a reply to, or has a logical dependence upon, another", and then say
"followup MUST/non-followup MUST NOT", but then, that idea was discarded.
It seems better to lose the ability to determine what is and is not a
followup to some people, and who am I to argue with that?