From: Charles Lindsey (chl@clerew.man.ac.uk)
Date: Sat Mar 13 2004 - 09:03:50 CST
In <4051BED5.1030707@erols.com> Bruce Lilly <blilly@erols.com> writes:
>Seth Breidbart wrote:
>>
>> I agree with Russ. I do too. I've done it in long threads when the
>> header got too long (before it could wrap safely), by deleting a few
>> out of the middle. I've also done it "illegally" (making a single
>> article a followup to two different branches of a thread; obviously,
>> newsreaders wouldn't show it that way, but it was the closest to what
>> I, as poster, intended for the semantics).
>The point is that the Usefor draft does not provide for user editing
>of References; there are requirements on followup agents, but no
>provision for user override.
We discussed this earlier. Even John Stanley admitted that he
deleted/altered References on occasion.
You can't stop a user from doing it but, if he does, all he is saying is
"I don't want this treated as a followup" - whatever that might mean.
I would suggest leaving our present wording alone.
The more interesting point is whether to say anything about the case where
a user follows up to two or more predecessors (as John Stanley frequently
does in this thread). I posted a suggestion about this a few days back,
but nobody commented (essentially, I suggested that all you wanted was
that followups should occur later in the References header than any
precursor).
-- 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