Re: The ultimate luxury ?
From: Jesse F. Hughes (jesse_at_phiwumbda.org)
Date: 07/29/04
- Next message: Alex Green: "Re: 'Multiverse Theory' - Universe is a Virtual Reality Matrix"
- Previous message: Donald G. Shead: "Re: Galileo's inertial and free fall motion so fall off your high chair and die horribly"
- Maybe in reply to: Jeff Relf: "The ultimate luxury ?"
- Next in thread: Jeff Relf: "_ SHOULD _ Have No Back Reference."
- Reply: Jeff Relf: "_ SHOULD _ Have No Back Reference."
- Reply: Eric Gisse: "Re: The ultimate luxury ?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 13:41:36 +0200
jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:
> In article <_Jeff_Relf_2004_Jul_28_q3qX@NCPlus.NET>,
> Jeff Relf <Jeff_Relf_@_NCPlus.NET.Invalid> wrote:
>>Hi jmfbahciv,
> <snip mushmouthing>
>
>>The References line is thee only true thread,
>> the Subject line just introduces the text.
>> ( Or at least it should, I believe )
>
> It doesn't matter WTF you believe. What matters is the spec.
> Period.
I do not defend changing the subject line every post, which is boorish
behavior at best. Is this what he's doing or not? He didn't appear
to alter it in this thread.
Anyway, I checked the "specs". Here's what I found.
,----[ http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1036.html ]
| 2.1.4. Subject
|
| The "Subject" line (formerly "Title") tells what the message is
| about. It should be suggestive enough of the contents of the
| message to enable a reader to make a decision whether to read the
| message based on the subject alone. If the message is submitted in
| response to another message (e.g., is a follow-up) the default
| subject should begin with the four characters "Re:", and the
| "References" line is required. For follow-ups, the use of the
| "Summary" line is encouraged.
`----
Summary? Boy, you don't see that header these days.
,----[ http://www.usenet-fr.net/fr-chartes/son-of-rfc1036.2.html ]
| If the article is a followup, the subject SHOULD begin with "Re: " (a
| "back reference"). If the article is not a followup, the subject
| MUST not begin with a back reference. Back references are
| case-insensitive, although "Re: " is the preferred form. A followup
| agent assisting a poster in preparing a followup SHOULD prepend a back
| reference, UNLESS the subject already begins with one. If the poster
| determines that the topic of the followup differs significantly from
| what is described in the subject, a new, more descriptive, subject
| SHOULD be substituted (with no back reference). An article whose
| subject begins with a back reference MUST have a References header
| referencing the precursor.
`----
Okay, so *that* looks relevant. It's surprising, too. It says that a
post with new subject should not contain a back reference, but that's
not the convention I see these days. In a literal reading of this
RFC, all or almost all of the posts with subjects "blah blah (was:
bluh bluh") are in violation.
How is Relf changing the subject line? (He didn't change this one.)
Is it syntactic mangling or is it editorial choice? His posts don't
usually appear in my newsreader, so I'm not sure exactly what the
complaint is.
-- "Many argue that its programmers have turned out shoddy programs, but [their] objective is to make profit, not superlative programs per se. By the profit criterion, Microsoft has been one of the greatest companies in the history of this country." -- ADTI defends Microsoft
- Next message: Alex Green: "Re: 'Multiverse Theory' - Universe is a Virtual Reality Matrix"
- Previous message: Donald G. Shead: "Re: Galileo's inertial and free fall motion so fall off your high chair and die horribly"
- Maybe in reply to: Jeff Relf: "The ultimate luxury ?"
- Next in thread: Jeff Relf: "_ SHOULD _ Have No Back Reference."
- Reply: Jeff Relf: "_ SHOULD _ Have No Back Reference."
- Reply: Eric Gisse: "Re: The ultimate luxury ?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
