Subject: Re: <draft-ietf-usefor-usepro-01.txt>

From: John Stanley <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 09:01:00 -0700 (PDT)

"Charles Lindsey" <chl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

>The whole of this discussion started because it was reported that some FAQ
>writers had formed the habit of linking their multi-part FAQs together
>using References-headers, and a consensus developed that this practice was
>a Good Thing.

Umm, this discussion started when I read the document listed in the 
subject and saw a silly alternative definition for a word that implied
a level of control over something that did not exist.

>But why did those FAQ writers start doing that? Because they saw that it
>would cause their parts to be presented in the correct order, at least in
>those reading agents which did threading (which was enough of them to be
>useful).

And which reading agents did they see this in? Their own. Keep in mind,
they get to control how they see things, so the fact that they can control
how they see things is no big surprise. It is their ability to control
how OTHER PEOPLE see things that is the question, and which they lack.

>And I've just explained why it was right. Your move.

No, you explained why someone has unfounded expectations about something
they do being able to control other people's display of articles. 
Unfounded expectations are not a reason to change a definition.

However, the fact that they DO use the header to indicate relationships
that are just outside the old definition are a reason to change it, if
one it truly documenting existing practice. It's just not correct to imply
that their desire to indicate a relationship actually has some basis in
controlling the display of articles. That implication is the problem with
the alternate definition you have provided.