-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
To: LIST: ietf-822(_at_)imc(_dot_)org;
Xref: clerew local.mime:4338
From: "Charles Lindsey" <chl(_at_)clerew(_dot_)man(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk>
Subject: Experiment with multiple Reference headers
(was References with multiple precursore [sic])
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV)
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 10:52:52 GMT
This message contains two Reference headers.
not here it didn't
Please report whether it is
exactly how might one know ?
I've snipped a lot of transport stuff already ... but I wouldn't like to
guess how much of what remains was added by that process -- or whether
other things have disappeared on the way
and whether it causes any other problems, such as
it always strikes me that the sort of people who combine two threads
into one and answer bits of both at random (and who therefore demand two
reference headers so that their valuable contributions can be correctly
placed into the responses) are exactly the sort of people I find have
contributed very little to the conversation :(
viz: It might be elitist, but I find that the directed tree graphs we
have at the moment work remarkably well --- and I don't see why anyone
wants to encourage random connections between multiple discussions :(
For this first experiment, both the Reference headers are identical. If
this causes no obvious problems, then I shall try further examples
representing various DAGs.
also, I endorse Keith Moore's point about the likely value of the
experiments given the huge number of clients out there -- are you
expecting me to feed this through a few dozen of my Perl scripts as
well, to see what they do ? If they die("multiple References") then
should we just criticise my coding style ?
richard @ highwayman . com "Nothing seems the same
Still you never see the change from day to day
And no-one notices the customs slip away"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----