Re: The ultimate luxury ?
From: Jesse F. Hughes (jesse_at_phiwumbda.org)
Date: 07/30/04
- Next message: Jesse F. Hughes: "Re: _ SHOULD _ Have No Back Reference."
- Previous message: Shrikantha S. Shastry: "Re: UPANISHADS AND THE UNIVERSE"
- Maybe in reply to: Jeff Relf: "The ultimate luxury ?"
- Next in thread: Kenneth Doyle: "Re: The ultimate luxury ?"
- Reply: Kenneth Doyle: "Re: The ultimate luxury ?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 12:45:26 +0200
jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:
> In article <87n01jxcpb.fsf@phiwumbda.org>,
> jesse@phiwumbda.org (Jesse F. Hughes) wrote:
>>jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:
>>
[...]
> He has said, in a later post, that is does change it. Since
> he can't concentrate on more than one point at a time and
> can't remember what happened the last minute, he apparently
> does alter the field that most newsreaders sort on before
> they present the list of unread posts.
Most? Really?
Aside from Google groups and apparently Agent's default setting, I
didn't think that sorting on subject was popular. I guess that News
Xpress Version 1.0 Beta #4 also does this, given your complaints.
But I still think that sorting threads on subject rather than
reference is the exception rather than the rule. I could be wrong.
>>
>>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
>
> That's three; there must be a space...bug nitpik there should two.
Maybe the problem was on my copy and paste or formatting. I'm not
sure.
>
>>| "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.
>
> Huh. I do with my newsreader. I often wondered WTH it was supposed
> to be used for and what the software did with it. I never
> experimented because this crap I run doesn't allow changes..it
> gets all premenstrual when I do anything out of order and wander
> from the usual typing.
I don't see many people using it.
>>
>>,----[ 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.
>
> So, that means that the _software_ should prepend a "Re: " if
> the user clicks the followup icon. It doesn't imply that the
> user should voluntarily hand editing just to be a PITA.
>
>>|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.
>
> Yup. Now I wonder what the software does do. But I ain't going
> to investigate what works for me.
My software certainly keeps the References line intact when I edit the
subject.
>
>>It says that a
>>post with new subject should not contain a back reference, but that's
>>not the convention I see these days.
>
> I believe that's because of how the user copies the post he's
> replying to...isn't it?
I don't see how that's relevant. A newsclient could easily enforce a
rule that if the subject has been changed, then drop the references
line. That would be in keeping with the RFC, but I think it would be
a bad thing.
>> .. In a literal reading of this
>>RFC, all or almost all of the posts with subjects "blah blah (was:
>>bluh bluh") are in violation.
>
> None of us got trained in the rules of usenet. That's what happens
> when consumers use something without going through the trouble
> of using the training wheels. It's also a problem with people
> writing and using any old code that falls into bits on their
> storage medium. The world is an anarchy of bits a'blowin in the
> EMF wind.
I think that some of the change is due to usage. It sometimes makes
sense to change the subject without losing threading. Going off on a
tangent motivated by a particular post suggests that one change the
subject but keep the reference, for instance. Not that one should
change the subject every post.
-- "A recruitment consultant I know thinks the most important quality in a winner is to be lucky. To avoid wasting his time with unlucky applicants, he takes half the resumes piled on his desk and throws them straight in the bin." -- John Ramsden
- Next message: Jesse F. Hughes: "Re: _ SHOULD _ Have No Back Reference."
- Previous message: Shrikantha S. Shastry: "Re: UPANISHADS AND THE UNIVERSE"
- Maybe in reply to: Jeff Relf: "The ultimate luxury ?"
- Next in thread: Kenneth Doyle: "Re: The ultimate luxury ?"
- Reply: Kenneth Doyle: "Re: The ultimate luxury ?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
