From: Charles Lindsey (chl@clerew.man.ac.uk)
Date: Wed May 05 2004 - 05:40:15 CDT
In <20040504184928.GF20607@tagseth-trd.consultit.no> Eivind Tagseth <eivindt@multinet.no> writes:
>I think those on the pro side should write the pro-section, and since you're
>on that side, I'm sure your's is better. I do think it is a little
>unprecise though, and could use some more work. Noone actually uses
>"Re: " for sorting, do they? They do the opposite, they are able to
>_ignore_ "Re: " when sorting. And some clients actually use "Re: " as
>an indication that the article belongs to a thread, even if the References
>header is missing. This behaviour certainly feels broken to me, since
>it assumes that all articles without References and a "Re: " at the beginning
>of the subject have been posted by a broken agent -- that is, this behaviour
>actually causes good agent's articles to be broken. Anyway, that's a
>matter for USEAGE.
Well actually most of this particular squabble is a matter for USEAGE. I
think we almost have a rough consensus (excluding Bruce and John) on what
Usefor should say normatively, but not on the exact wording, or on how to
word that NOTE. So my likely next move is to try and write some wording
for USEAGE that will satisfy all of you. We can come back to the wording
in USEFOR after that.
>I'm sure you could write a version that I have no problems with, but I
>guess the real question is if my version makes any difference at all for
>John and Bruce...
I don't think any rewording is going to satisfy John and Bruce.
-- 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