At 13:44 27/10/04 -0400, Bruce Lilly wrote:
On Wed October 27 2004 12:58, Graham Klyne wrote:
> At 10:07 27/10/04 -0400, Bruce Lilly wrote:
> > > Or a least, if a message is going to point to an
> > > archive of itself, it should be a faithful archive.
> >
> >That raises several new issues with Martin's draft. They can be
> >summarized as "what is the utility of the proposed field; who
> >will use it, under what circumstances, and for what purpose(s)?".
> >Note that that is not a question about syntax, or about semantics,
> >or about validity, but about utility.
>
> Utility? That's easy! The system described by Martin's draft
The question is not about the w3 list archive, it is about
the specific proposal in Martin's draft (which mentions the
w3c list only by way of example).
As a demonstration of utility, I find that example to be quite compelling.
Please reread the question and the draft. The draft title
and topic pertain to a message header field; one that is
supposed to provide information pointing to an archived
copy of that very message. Now please explain the
utility *of such a field*, given that if I already have the
field, I already have the message that it supposedly
references.
To paraphrase (British) parliament-speak: I refer the gentleman to the
answer given previously:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2004Oct/0050.html
#g
------------
Graham Klyne
For email:
http://www.ninebynine.org/#Contact