From: Bruce Lilly (blilly@erols.com)
Date: Fri May 07 2004 - 09:38:23 CDT
Charles Lindsey wrote:
> 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.
You have completely missed the point. How precisely does vi, when opening
a new document which is to become a proto-article followup, "prepare a
'default' subject"? Moreover, you are presuming universal availability and
applicability of certain UI characteristics which are not universally
available; e.g. "click" makes no sense for a character-based UI. You have
also failed to understand "prompt the user to 'supply an appropriate
subject field text'" -- there was nothing about "here is the default"; It
is unreasonable to mandate (with RFC 2119 language) provision of a default
when some user agents have no ability to do so.
> As to AI, I do not think that a likely scenario, but again there is no
> objection to showing the user the 'default' header, the 'AI generated'
> header, and a blank box in which to write his own.
"box" is not a universally available UI characteristic.
> But I cannot imagine an 'AI' system that would not require some positive
> confirmation by the user, so we are left with the situation that all the
> draft is saying is what is to be used if the user does nothing positive.
No, that is not what it says. If the intent is in fact to say that the
user has ultimate responsibility for the field content, then simply say
so.