From: Seth Breidbart (sethb@panix.com)
Date: Sat Mar 13 2004 - 14:28:07 CST
"Charles Lindsey" <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> wrote:
> In <200403120547.i2C5l8d11426@panix5.panix.com> Seth Breidbart <sethb@panix.com> writes:
>
>>> SHOULD by default take the Subject from the precursor, but MAY prepend
>>> a single "Re:" is none present.
>
>>I would prefer (if the wording were fixed)
>
>> SHOULD by default take the Subject from the precursor with "Re: "
>> prepended if none present, but MAY refrain from prepending it.
>
>>The meaning is the same, but the emphasis is different. Putting it
>>that way is strong enough for me.
>
> No, the meaning is actually a little different (and stronger). I urge to
> to take a look at my suggested new wording elsewhere in this thread.
The _meaning_ (in terms of what is permitted, SHOULD, MUST, etc.) is
the same. I don't want wording that suggests adding "Re: " when not
present is anti-preferred.
How about:
SHOULD by default either (1) take the Subject from the precursor
with "Re: " prepended if none present, or (2) copy the Subject from
the precursor exactly.
That puts the much more common (in existing software) case first, but
makes them exactly equal wrt SHOULD, MAY, and MUST.
Seth