From: Bruce Lilly (blilly@erols.com)
Date: Fri May 07 2004 - 15:47:25 CDT
Charles Lindsey wrote:
> In <40986B2E.2080306@erols.com> Bruce Lilly <blilly@erols.com> writes:
>
>
>>Charles Lindsey wrote:
>
>
>>>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?
>
>
> It indicates that the topic of the message is a continuing discussion of
> the matters indicated by the words following that "Re: ".
IOW, it does not identify the topic of the message at all.
>>>>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.
>
>
>>From our current draft:
>
> The purpose of this present standard is to define the format of
> articles and the protocols to be used for Netnews in general, and for
> Usenet in particular, and to set standards to be followed by software
> that implements those protocols.
>From you message regarding document names more than a year ago:
> In <Pine.BSI.3.91.1030501173804.18645K-100000@spsystems.net> Henry Spencer <henry@spsystems.net> writes:
>
>
>>>Assuming we go with the chairs' scheme for the four-way split -- which, as
>>>noted before, I think is advisable -- a thought on possible names:
>
>
>>> #1 USEFOR format
>>> #2 USEPRO protocols
>>> #3 USEAGE "Good Netkeeping"
>>> #4 USEINT internationalization
>
>
>>>(Yes, #3's name is not spelled the same way as the English word "usage".
>>>So what? None of these names are English words.)
>
>
> Yes, that is why I spelt it the "funny way" (also because, it turns out,
> "USAGE" breaks my cross-referencing system).
And from the co-chair's message "The plan of action", also more than a
year ago, describing the first of those, viz. USEFOR:
1. A purely syntax and semantics document for Netnews article format. This will be something akin to RFC 2822; it tells you what a syntactically legal article looks like and what all of the fields mean. The document editor and working group might decide that this has a generate/interpret structure like 2822, or maybe not; we don't need to pin that down now. HOWEVER, no matter what this document will *only* deal with articles that conform to 2822 and MIME syntax. It will not deal with the 8-bit header issue and will not cover the use of international newsgroup names. (More on this below.) The idea here is to nail down that which is relatively uncontroversial. This document is intended to be published as a Proposed Standard RFC.
and
- We think document #1 should have a final draft within *2* months.
If the current draft of USEFOR does not match the description set by the WG
co-chairs more than a year ago, and just short of a year after the date by
which the final draft of document #1 was supposed to have been completed, it
is because the Document Editor hasn't followed through on the directions
given by the co-chairs.