From: Charles Lindsey (chl@clerew.man.ac.uk)
Date: Mon Mar 15 2004 - 07:34:33 CST
In <200403141250.i2ECnuL3012287@jefferson.patriot.net> "Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz" <Shmuel+gen@patriot.net> writes:
>In <200403132028.i2DKS7Q06442@panix5.panix.com>, on 03/13/2004
> at 03:28 PM, Seth Breidbart <sethb@panix.com> said:
>>I don't want wording that suggests adding "Re: " when not present is
>>anti-preferred.
>While others don't want wording that suggests that adding "Re: " is
>reasonable, much less preferred.
But the purpose of USEFOR is to state what is _allowed_. Insofar as it
gives advice as to what is reasonable, that should be none in NOTEs (or,
if more detail is required, in USEAGE).
Now what I have written in my latest text, within NOTEs, is two statements
of fact:
1. The practice of adding "Re: " is widespread.
2. Its desirability is "arguable" (which is clearly the case, because we
are all arguing about it).
But the actual normative wording (SHOULD. MAY, etc) needs to be neutral,
and people should not be reading subtle meanings into the way it is
expressed.
-- 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