Subject: Re: #1008 USEFOR 1.5 References: Final text on "followup"

From: John Stanley <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 11:32:11 -0700 (PDT)

"Charles Lindsey" <chl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

>No, not in USEFOR as currently written.

That's why I wrote "that's what RFC2822 tells us."

If we use RFC2822 terms differently than RFC2822, then we must have
already documented the difference and the justification somewhere.

>There is a discussion in progress
>as to whether to change USEFOR to adhere strictly to the RFC 2822
>terminology, and if that change is made then the "header body" that I have
>asked for will become "header field body".

According to RFC2822, it already is "header field body". Do we have a 
reason for it to be something else?

---

From: "Charles Lindsey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 10:34:10 GMT

>already documented the difference and the justification somewhere.

Indeed. Which is why USEFOR-04 documents it.

The justification is long standing usage in the News community (and in the
email community too), and in previous News documents.

>reason for it to be something else?

Either we change all of the relevent terms consistently, or we change none
of them. Mix'n'match certainly won't work.

-- 
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: [email-masked]      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