You are in violation of RFC 1036.
From: Jeff Relf (Jeff_Relf__at__NCPlus.NET.Invalid)
Date: 07/30/04
- Next message: Jim Black: "Re: Capitalization of Relativity and Quantum"
- Previous message: Kenneth Doyle: "Re: Science, Religion, Philosophy."
- In reply to: Eric Gisse: "Re: The ultimate luxury ?"
- Next in thread: International All-Star Cast: "Request For Comment"
- Reply: International All-Star Cast: "Request For Comment"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 30 Jul 2004 03:36:05 GMT
Hi Eric Gisse,
Re: How you view my changes to titles,
You are in violation of RFC 1036, because you used the title:
" Re: The ultimate luxury ? "
when you commented, << Editorial choice.
His replies to another person, as often as not,
will appear with a new subject header. No reason,
just 'cuz - regardless if it annoys others or not. >>
Note: in these RFCs the word SHOULD ( when capitalized )
and the word MUST ( also when capitalized )
have very specific meanings.
>From 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. >>
>From 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 " ). >>
So the term, " back reference " refers to
the " Re: " tag at the start of a title,
and Not to the References line.
And the key word was SHOULD, not MUST.
So Google.COM is also in violation of RFC 1036.
>From http://www.usenet-fr.net/fr-chartes/son-of-rfc1036.2.html
<< 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 ). >>
^^^^ ^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^
_ SHOULD _ Have No Back Reference... Get it ?
That means no "Re: " tag at the start of a title.
( It does Not mean no References line )
- Next message: Jim Black: "Re: Capitalization of Relativity and Quantum"
- Previous message: Kenneth Doyle: "Re: Science, Religion, Philosophy."
- In reply to: Eric Gisse: "Re: The ultimate luxury ?"
- Next in thread: International All-Star Cast: "Request For Comment"
- Reply: International All-Star Cast: "Request For Comment"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
