From: Bruce Lilly (blilly@erols.com)
Date: Sat May 15 2004 - 10:39:43 CDT
Seth Breidbart wrote:
> Bruce Lilly <blilly@erols.com> wrote:
>>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".
The definition of the field is that the field body (i.e. everything
after the field name and colon) describes the topic of the message.
N.B. not following "Re: ", but the entire field body. So your claim
on the 4th of this month that:
> Nor is anybody proposing any content that disagrees with that
> characterization.
[referring to the semantics of the Subject field body] is a false
claim: the proposal to include "Re: " where that string is not the
topic of the message is in fact proposal of Subject field body
"content that disagrees with that" defined semantics.
>>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.
It's clear to me. It was clear to Henry over a year ago. It was
clear to our WG chair then as well. Nothing substantive has
changed in the past year that would change that.
>>>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'm not pretending. I'm stating facts. In this case the fact is that
an insubordinate Document Editor has held up progress for more than
a year.
> I would claim that your refusal to accept the best way of handling
> things, or any compromise, is what's holding up progress.
There has been no "compromise" -- Charles continues to parade the same
objectionable text which he added toward the end of last year which is
contrary to the WG discussion which took place last year on the topic
of "Re: ". The best way to handle it -- as agreed by the Chair and a
number of WG participants (several instances documented recently in
messages to this mailing list) -- it to discuss it in the "USEAGE"
document and not in the two Standards Track documents. It is Charles'
(and others') refusal to accept that which is holding up progress.
>>"Re" is not an issue affecting either syntax/semantics or network
>>operations.
>
>
> It most definitely does affect semantics: it has meaning.
The definition of semantics of the Subject field has been discussed.
That definition does not single out any particular bit of structure
in the field body for special treatment -- in fact the field is
unstructured and the semantics of the field body *as a whole* is to
describe the topic of the message.
> Even if you don't understand or want to accept that meaning, it still
> has meaning.
It has no *special* meaning in the context of the Subject field's
defined semantics.
>> The syntax/semantics issue was settled last Spring,
>
>
> When was there consensus that "Re: " had no semantic meaning?
Over a year ago. Read the archive.
>>Rather than remove that objectionable wording
>
>
> Which removal would be objected to by a _majority_ of the people
> expressing opinions.
Where is the evidence for that extraordinary claim? I recall no
recent poll where movement of the objectionable text to the "USEAGE"
document was the issue of ballot. In the only recent informal,
unofficial "polls", that option was not even presented by Mr.
Excluded Middle With a Not-So-Hidden Agenda.