Subject: Re: #1043 "header": Suggested resolution

From: John Stanley <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2005 12:59:35 -0700 (PDT)

Henry Spencer <henry@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

>I really think reducing our document's readability to its primary
>audience,

Using standard terminology does not reduce the readability of our
document, and certainly not for our primary audience, who are people who
are going to have to read and understand RFC2822 along with our standard.  
It isn't bedtime reading, it's an IETF standard, and it is an IETF
standard intended to be read with RFC2822. Having to translate back and
forth is what reduces USABILITY, which it the goal.

>I can live with it *if* we explicitly apologize for it.

There are other things to apologize for in "our document" than for using
standard terminology. That's one thing we do NOT have to apologize for.

"Charles Lindsey" <chl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

>BTW, will the change, as proposed, still allow us to speak, informally, of
>the "Date header", etc., or are we suppose to say the "Date (header)
>field" everywhere?

You may speak informally in any way you wish, but it is trivial to convert
the current "Date Header" to "Date Header Field" and be precise in the
technical standard.

>Us poor editors will just have to spend an hour or so with out text
>editors :-( .

Ten minutes in vi did the trick. If it takes you an hour, you need a 
better text editor. What, do you have to find the right spot in the 
punched tape and glue chads back into place to make an edit? Can we get 
past this "it's too much work to be correct" argument yet?

---

From: John Stanley <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 09:38:21 -0700 (PDT)

"Charles Lindsey" <chl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

>Add "even if it confuses the rest of the world, and leads them to complain
>you are stuck in your ivory tower and would rather you had a document that
>was pedantically correct rather than one of use to the people working at
>the coal face".

Your argument is filled with so many silly assumptions, unsupported 
assertions and insulting implications that it is hard to determine where 
to start debunking it.

What will confuse the "rest of the world" is telling them to read RFC2822 
and then use terms that are different than RFC2822.

It is not an "ivory tower" to be consistent with the rest of the world.

Using the correct terminology will not make our standard any less usefull
to anyone.

People who implement news software are not "at the coal face". and they 
are not idiots who won't be able to understand the terms used in RFC2822.

And it still won't take an hour using any reasonable editing tool to make 
the changes.

>And I suspect that "in the long run" the terminology that the marketplace
>uses will eventually prevail, even for email.

I have no idea what you mean by "prevail" or by "the marketplace".  These
are meaningless terms. The slang that people use in everyday speech is
outside the scope of our discussion, and the people who write the next
standard are free to use whatever terminology they feel appropriate,
assuming they have some justification for changes from the existing
standards, which we do not.

>You could also argue that, since this WG has consistenly used the "header"
>terminology since the earliest days, that it should require an actual
>consensus to make the change before reversing that decision.

I find it amusing that you make this argument given the large number
of changes you've made to the drafts based on nothing more than your own
feelings about it. If "since the earliest days" is now insufficient cause
for correcting a mistake, then it was insufficient for each and every
one of the other corrections you have made over the years. Please be 
consistent; if you want to make this argument now, I expect to see the 
long-standing text regarding References headers replaced. No, not your 
"followups MUST/everything else MAY" version, but the "followups 
MUST/everything else MUST NOT" that used to exist.

---

From: John Stanley <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 15:09:51 -0700 (PDT)

"Charles Lindsey" <chl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

>To describe a substantial part of your audience as "irrelevant" 

He didn't describe a substantial part of our audience as irrelevant. He 
("Forrest J. Cavalier III") said:

]...BUT WE HAVE NO CONCERN for people who refuse to read and
]understand NORMATIVE references.  We can totally ignore such people when
]writing, because they are irrelevant.

People who refuse to read normative references have no business
implementing news software according to our standard, and are thus not our
audience. Specifically, when we explicitely point people to RFC2822 as a 
basis for our standard, those who refuse to read RFC2822 are irrelevant. 

We cannot force them to read anything, but neither are we bound to 
consider them when we write the standard.

If your attitude is that we must accept every person who refuses to read 
RFC2822 and hold their tiny little hands through the process of 
implementing news software, then you have no business editing a news 
standard. You will be too likely to stuff in extraneous material and 
rewrite perfectly acceptable material in your goal to protect the ignorant 
from themselves.