From: Bruce Lilly (blilly@erols.com)
Date: Sun May 02 2004 - 08:54:47 CDT
Nick Boalch wrote:
> Bruce Lilly wrote:
>> Perhaps, but that has nothing to do with
>> a) defined syntax or semantics
>> b) network operations
>> and therefore does not belong in documents addressing those
>> topics. It might be appropriate for some other document.
>
>
> Ah, I think we might be confusing each other by arguing about two
> different things at the same time: (1) the wording of a section about
> the initialization of the Subject-header in followups and (2) whether
> such a section should be in this particular document at all.
>
> If we're going to have a section in the draft entitled 'Duties of a
> followup agent' then we need to address how it initializes headers; do
> you not agree?
If the document topic is network operations, and if you are specifically
speaking about a header field which is defined to contain "only human-
readable content", and with unstructured syntax, then no, I do not agree,
as no network operations are affected. You are speaking of a user
interface issue (since the user is ultimately responsible for the
content), and that is outside of scope. Structured header fields which do
play a role in network operations (e.g. Injection-Date) are another matter.
> Subject-header reads something like 'Re: Ant: Re: Sv: Re: Ant: Re: Foo'.
If that's what the user intended (and if it happens, that is evidently
the case, since the user could have changed it), so what?