From: Eivind Tagseth (eivindt@multinet.no)
Date: Wed May 05 2004 - 01:18:35 CDT
* Charles Lindsey <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> [2004-05-04 12:02:06 +0000]:
> In <20040504074618.GA20607@tagseth-trd.consultit.no> Eivind Tagseth <eivindt@multinet.no> writes:
> I think that for a reading agent to attempt to translate a "Re: " as
> received into "Sv: " for display would be unwise, but still just about
> compliant with the draft. I would hope that, when creating a followup, it
> would take note of the received/stored text rather than the displayed text
> and hence not prepend any further "Re: " or, if this was the first
> followup, that it would prepend a "Re: " for use in the text as injected,
> even if it displayed it to the local user as "Sv: ".
> But I still think such translations would be unwise.
I agree with you completely Charles. But as you can see, most newsreaders
and email clients _do_ localize the "Re: " prefix, and not just for
display. There is clearly a _need_ for people to have a localized
variant of "Re: ", since "Re: " makes no sense in most languages. If
we standardized on the back-reference "Ant: " instead of "Re: ", I assume
you would find that very strange as well, and would rather see the
string "Re: ", which is more familiar in your language.
I agree that translating the back-reference is unwise, which is why I
want to get rid of it!
Eivind