Subject: Re: #1008 USEFOR 1.5: Suggested language on "followup"

From: John Stanley <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 09:57:41 -0700 (PDT)

Seth Breidbart <sethb@xxxxxxxxx>:

>Exactly as before: thread it as if the article were a followup.
>That's the reason for inserting the References header.

Sorry, but that cannot be the reason. Display of articles is outside the 
scope of our standard, and of RFC1036, so "please display it this way" 
cannot be the function of any header defined therein.  

The only reason for inserting the References header is to say "this is a
followup to article X". It has no other defined meaning. If the poster
includes a References header, which it otherwise prohibited, it can only
be to indicate "this is a followup". It cannot be "display it with X". 

Now, MAYBE the poster is trying to say "I call this a followup
because...", but we cannot divine that internal discussion from the
appearance of the article. All we know is that he DID call it a followup
for some reason because it contains a header that is allowed only in
followups.

---

From: Seth Breidbart <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 13:24:04 -0400 (EDT)

> Sorry, but that cannot be the reason. Display of articles is outside
> the scope of our standard, and of RFC1036, so "please display it
> this way" cannot be the function of any header defined therein.

"Thread it" isn't necessarily a display issue.  But if you prefer,
change my language to "Treat this article as if it were a followup."

> The only reason for inserting the References header is to say "this
> is a followup to article X".

That makes the assumption that "followup" iff "contains References
header".  We voted against that assumption.  Deal with it.

> appearance of the article.

But based on both the vote here and reality, the poster is _not_
calling the article a followup, he's just indicating that it would be
useful to treat it as one.

If that means you can't distinguish between "this article is a
followup" and "this article ought to be treated as a followup" then so
what?  Since you ought to treat them the same anyway, of what use
would being able to make that distinction be?

> All we know is that he DID call it a followup for some reason
> because it contains a header that is allowed only in followups.

We voted otherwise.

Seth