Subject: #1299 Suggested resolution

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 13:37:47 -0700

I believe that it's not unreasonable to close #1299 (Richard Clayton's 
comments) with the following substantial change:

Add to 1.5:

Generate: An agent is said to "generate" a construct if it did not exist 
before the agent generated it. Examples are when an user agent generates 
a message from text and addressing information supplied by an user, or 
when a news server generates an "Injection-Info" header for a newly 
posted message.

Accept: An agent is said to "accept" a construct if some other entity 
generates it and passes it to the agent in question.

The editorial issues have already been taken care of; the generic 
comment that "it is a mess" is not something that I think we can address 
within a reasonable amount of time at this stage.

Good enough?

                 Harald

---

From: Russ Allbery <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 13:58:11 -0700

> before the agent generated it. Examples are when an user agent generates a
> message from text and addressing information supplied by an user, or when
> a news server generates an "Injection-Info" header for a newly posted
> message.

> The editorial issues have already been taken care of; the generic comment
> that "it is a mess" is not something that I think we can address within a
> reasonable amount of time at this stage.

> Good enough?

Looks good to me.  And I think this is a very useful clarification.

-- 
Russ Allbery ([email-masked])             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

---

From: Seth Breidbart <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 21:16:26 -0400 (EDT)

> Generate: An agent is said to "generate" a construct if it did not
> exist before the agent generated it.
                         ^^^^^^^^^
That doesn't sound right.

Generate: An agent is said to "generate" a construct if it was not
provided to the agent as input, but emanates from the agent.

Seth

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 07:51:32 +0200

>provided to the agent as input, but emanates from the agent.
I'd use "created by" rather than "emanates from", but that's because I 
rarely use the word "emanate", and suspect others might find it strange too.

But of course defining "generate" in terms of "generate" is a no-no....

---

From: Seth Breidbart <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 02:10:16 -0400 (EDT)

Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]> wrote:

> I'd use "created by" rather than "emanates from", but that's because
> I rarely use the word "emanate", and suspect others might find it
> strange too.

That's fine; I just want the distinction to be "It didn't exist until
the agent outputted it."

Seth

---

From: "Charles Lindsey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 21:59:23 GMT

>provided to the agent as input, but emanates from the agent.

Yes, Seth's wording, or something derived from it, is better. Otherwise OK.

-- 
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133   Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: [email-masked]      Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9      Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5