From: Bruce Lilly (blilly@erols.com)
Date: Tue May 04 2004 - 23:18:54 CDT
Charles Lindsey wrote:
> In <409701BF.2080902@erols.com> Bruce Lilly <blilly@erols.com> writes:
>
>>Henry Spencer wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 1 May 2004, Bruce Lilly wrote:
>>>
>>>Instead, he's been trying to get you to accept a compromise, because
>>>various other people (e.g., me) think some discussion of the matter *does*
>>>belong in document #1
>
>
>>Neither you nor anybody else in this WG has given one shred of rationale
>>based on syntax or semantics for inclusion of any version of Charles'
>>proposed text in a purely syntax and semantics document (i.e. document #1).
>
>
> It is not proposed to put any such text in a purely syntax and semantics
> document (i.e. document #1). The text in question currently sits in
> section 8 which, if/when the split is made, would become a part of
> document #2.
Henry disagrees with you.
And nobody has given one shred of evidence based on network operations
(the topic of document #2) to support inclusion of your proposed text.
>> It is clear that it is not part of any
>>protocol exchange.
>
>
> False
You are mistaken, Nearly a year ago, we came down to the protocol issue,
and I challenged anybody to give an example of one. None was given, as
I pointed out months later when discussions resumed.
>>All that has been produced by those insisting on
>>including text regarding "Re:" that goes beyond what RFC 2822 provides
>>has been statements that they "wish it were in the syntax" -- and with
>>no supporting rationale.
>
>
> False
Show me something else which isn't riddled with logic errors or false
premises.
>> That small but loud faction continues to insist
>
> ^^^^^^^^^
> large and
We differ on that. I would hardly call a handful of people, who among them
are unable to come up with anything substantive "large". We agree about
"loud" I see.
>>that "Re:" must be given special mention in an unstructured header field
>>intended to convey only human-readable information about the topic of the
>>message,
>
>
>>and that that unstructured field must be forbidden to begin with
>>any other sequence of characters,
>
>
> False
That is what "Nothing else is an acceptable initialization" (your description
of what your text is intended to indicate") means.
>>including variations of case, such as
>>"RE:", which happens to be in widespread use.
>
>
> Rarely seen in my experience, but if you want to propose making it case
> insensitive, they I will be happy to discuss it.
That is not what the text in question states, and I can only comment
on what has been proposed.
>> All in spite of the fact
>>that it is clearly outside of the syntax and defined semantics (viz.
>>"only human-readable content" "identifying the topic of the message"),
>
>
> It is primarily for the benefit of humans (indeed, non-humans need to
> ignore it), nevertheless it still identifies the topic of the message.
In precisely what way does "Re:" identify the topic of a message which
has nothing to do with that particular sequence of characters?
>>and therefore has no place in "A purely syntax and semantics document".
>
>
> True, but we are not proposing to place it in such a document.
That is in fact the definition of the USEFOR document.