From: Eivind Tagseth (eivindt@multinet.no)
Date: Thu May 06 2004 - 15:00:25 CDT
* Charles Lindsey <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> [2004-05-06 12:00:07 +0000]:
> In <40986FEA.2070200@erols.com> Bruce Lilly <blilly@erols.com> writes:
>
> >However it does not permit a followup agent to prompt the user to "supply
> >an appropriate subject field text", it does not allow for (e.g.) vi as a
> >followup agent, it does not allow for a followup agent that uses AI or
> >similar technology to suggest an appropriate subject, etc. In short it
> >encroaches upon user-interface issues that we have no business encroaching
> >upon.
>
> No it directs the followup agent to prepare a 'default' subject (with or
> without "Re: "). After that, the user can override, so it would be
> perfectly in order for the followup agent to prompt the user with "please
> supply an appropriate subject; if you do not do so, then here is the
> default that will be used". It could even provide a "click here to use the
> default" button, to ensure that the user took some positive action one way
> or the other.
What about followup-agents without user interfaces? Some people post
multipart-messages (patch-sets, FAQ documents, etc) as articles of
the same thread (to make it easier for users to mark all parts
read/deleted). Behaviour like that could easily be automated by
scripts/plugins. Such a followup-agent would actually violate the
spec with the current wording. It seems as if we're now specifying
user interface issues in USEFOR, while they're clearly part of USEAGE.
Eivind