From: Charles Lindsey (chl@clerew.man.ac.uk)
Date: Mon Mar 15 2004 - 06:24:39 CST
In <878yi4eaju.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> writes:
>Charles Lindsey <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> writes:
>> 2. The Subject-header SHOULD be initialized from the precursor's
>> Subject-header, except that the precursor's Subject-content (5.4)
>> MAY first be prepended with the back-reference "Re: " (which is
>> case sensitive), unless it already begins with "Re: "; however
>> posters MAY then change this before posting if they wish. The
>> prepended "Re: " SHOULD NOT be contained within any encoded-word
>> in the new Subject-content.
>Nope, you just lost me again.
>If you want to find a compromise position, please refrain from the urge to
>add any other instances of the words "SHOULD" or "MUST" to the language.
What you said in your previous message was:
>> SHOULD by default take the Subject from the precursor, but MAY
>> prepend a single "Re:" is none present. However, that prepending is
>> deprecated and may be prohibited in a future RFC.
>
>I have no problems with this wording, amusingly. With or without the last
>sentence. :)
Which I understood to mean that you were prepared to accept the "SHOULD"
word at least to that extent. Is that correct? Because the structure of
what I have written is essentially the same.
If your concern is with the 2nd "SHOULD" (which is one way of interpreting
your "any _other_ instances" remark above), then I have already said that
that it is negotiable, but needs some discussion for which I set out an
agenda. I shall start a deparate thread on this.
>The above language is also pointlessly and needlessly complicated. You
>have a sentence with three subjunctive exceptions strung together in a
>row.
Yes, it has grown somewhat, and there are some double negatives. Here is a
simplification:
2. The Subject-header SHOULD be initialized from the precursor's
Subject-header, possibly preceded by the back-reference "Re: "
(case sensitive), unless it already begins with "Re: "; however
posters MAY then change this before posting if they wish. The
prepended "Re: " SHOULD NOT be contained within any encoded-word
in the new Subject-content.
Where the last sentence is still negotiable, as before.
If you prefer me to go further, with wording of the form "The
Subject-header SHOULD by default be ..." with consequent removal of the
"...if they wish" stuff, then that is fine, but then I would want to do
the same thing for the Newsgroups and Distribution headers, because
currently they are all worded in the same style. It would actually shorten
the whole section somewhat, so I may do it anyway.
-- 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