From: Bruce Lilly (blilly@erols.com)
Date: Wed Jun 02 2004 - 08:19:47 CDT
Charles Lindsey wrote:
> In <40B7C8AE.4060601@erols.com> Bruce Lilly <blilly@erols.com> writes:
>
>
>>Henry Spencer wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 25 May 2004, Bruce Lilly wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Bull yourself. Check older drafts. (Hint: USEAGE stuff got separated in
>>>>>draft 10, so you have to go back farther than that.)
>>>>
>>>>See for yourself. It's prominent in the diffs that Charles produced at the
>>>>time of draft 12.
>>>
>>>
>>>I'm looking at drafts themselves, not diffs. See for yourself:
>>>
>>>% egrep 'Followup agents MAY remove' *usefor*
>
>
>>egrep tells one nothing about context, specifically non-binding "NOTE"s vs.
>>normative text. Moreover, the issues is not limited to removal of text.
>>Finally, the text appeared in draft 12 *after* our discussions last Spring
>>and Summer, and that text does not accurately reflect the WG discussions as
>>presided over by one of our co-chairs.
>
>
> The text we are discussing is the following:
<snip>
No, the text under discussion is the entire "Re: " treatment which appeared in
draft 12 -- *after* WG discussion where the chair specifically indicated that
such text had no place in the document.
> Now, is there some point you were trying to make?
Yes, and the point has been made (even if it has managed to escape your
notice).