From: Seth Breidbart (sethb@panix.com)
Date: Fri May 14 2004 - 14:41:42 CDT
Bruce Lilly <blilly@erols.com> wrote:
> Charles Lindsey wrote:
>>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.
>
> You are claiming that the topic of *any* and *every* followup message is a
> discussion of the string "Re:"?!?
It looks to me like he's claiming that the topic of a followup message
is "a continuing discussion of the matters indicated by the words
following that \"Re: \"". This is contrasted as the topic of a
non-followup message being "the matters indicated by the words
following \"Subject: \", possibly beginning a discussion".
> To: usenet-format@landfield.com
> From: "Charles Lindsey" <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk>
>
> That is not "a message from Henry Spencer to" any individual. It is a message
> from you to this WG mailing list.
Depending on the level of quoting, the _content_ might well be a
message from Henry Spencer, quoted in a message from Charles to this
mailing list.
> Discussion of the "Re" hack clearly belongs in document #3 only;
It quite obviously is not "clear" no matter how many times you
continue to so assert.
>>IF and WHEN we create separate documents #1 and #2
>
> The "IF" and "WHEN" have been directed by the WG co-chairs. It was supposed
> to happen a year ago.
Therefore instructions from the chairs do not dictate reality, so stop
pretending that they do when it suits your purpose.
> Your refusal to produce them is holding up progress.
I would claim that your refusal to accept the best way of handling
things, or any compromise, is what's holding up progress.
> "Re" is not an issue affecting either syntax/semantics or network
> operations.
It most definitely does affect semantics: it has meaning.
Even if you don't understand or want to accept that meaning, it still
has meaning.
> The syntax/semantics issue was settled last Spring,
When was there consensus that "Re: " had no semantic meaning?
> Rather than remove that objectionable wording
Which removal would be objected to by a _majority_ of the people
expressing opinions.
Seth