Keith Moore <moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu> wrote:
I'd also recommend that the link point to an archived copy of the
message in original form, rather than, say, one that is translated
to HTML. Translating to HTML causes a loss of information and
potentially a loss of functionality. You should be able to reply to
an archived message, refile it into a folder, follow threads, etc.,
but those things are harder to do if the message is no longer in its
original format.
Thinking about this I realized that one reason I'd like such a field
is so that I could, given a message, more easily find other messages
in the thread.
Actually, if the link points to a message/rfc822 resource, won't it be
harder to find the other messages in the thread than if the link points
to a text/html page with hyperlinks? On the other hand, it's easier to
reply to a message if it's given in message/rfc822 form (or at least, it
could be, with a little browser support). Maybe it would be best for
the Archived-At: field to point to a text/html page which in turn links
to a message/rfc822 version of the same message.
After all, if I already have a copy of the message with the
archived-at field, why would I want to download it?
You probably wouldn't, but regardless of what data type the Archived-At:
field points at, it will make citing that message easier. Currently,
you can either include a copy of the message (which is inefficient),
or figure out the URI yourself by searching the archive (which is
inconvenient for you) or provide the message-id and let the reader
search the archive (which is inconvenient for them).
AMC