From: Charles Lindsey (chl@clerew.man.ac.uk)
Date: Wed May 12 2004 - 17:18:56 CDT
In <409BF5DD.6030103@erols.com> Bruce Lilly <blilly@erols.com> writes:
>>>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.
Eh? How do you get that? That is precisely the topic of *any* followup
message assuming that the user does not change it to something completely
different.
>>>>>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:
It looks more like a message from Henry Spencer to me.
>> 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).
So What? There was a proposal to create 4 documents, and maybe even to
label them in a certain way (and note also that the 2nd one was about
"protocols"). So there may yet exist those 4 documents with those 4 names.
So What?
THE DOCUMENT CURRENTLY KNOWN AS "USEFOR" IS NOT THE DOCUMENT TO BE KNOWN
AS #3.
THE DOCUMENT CURRENTLY KNOWN AS "USEFOR" HAS NEVER CLAIMED TO BE THE
DOCUMENT TO BE KNOWN AS #3.
THE DOCUMENT CURRENTLY KNOWN AS "USEFOR" IS NOT INTENDED TO BE THE
DOCUMENT TO BE KNOWN AS #3.
IF and WHEN we create separate documents #1 and #2 it might well be
convenient to label them respectively as "USEFOR" and "USEPRO", but
THAT HAS NOT HAPPENED YET. Hence the purpose of this current draft is
exactly as defined by the paragraph I have quoted above. Hence the current
document is NOT "A purely syntax and semantics document". So please can we
stop this nonsense and get on with the matter in hand.
>And from the co-chair's message "The plan of action", also more than a
>year ago, describing the first of those, viz. USEFOR:
Yes, so you keep saying. That plan was proposed by our Chairs, but never
agreed by the WG (there was a clear consensus to proceed with #3 and #4 at
the proper time, but no consensus as regards #1 and #2). That is a matter
which we shall have to consider just as soon as we have resolved the
technical issues at present under discussion, because there is no way that
I am going to be changing the technical content of the document at the
same time as I am trying to split it into two.
Maybe we shall decide to split it into #1 and #2 and maybe we won't. And
maybe our Chairs will return to lead that discussion and maybe they won't.
-- 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