Subject: #1313 Resolution of 2.2 - syntax for USENET articles

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 00:44:26 -0700

Ralph Babel thinks that we need to make note of MIME in this section.

MIME is described in the next section (2.3), which deals explicitly with 
MIME conformance.
I suggest that rather than mixing MIME into 2.2, we modify section 2.2 
so that it ONLY deals with headers.

I suggest the following change to section 2.2:

OLD:

   The syntax allowed for news
   articles is a strict subset of the "Internet Message Format", making
   all messages compliant with this specification inherently compliant
   with [RFC2822].  Note however that the converse is not guaranteed to
   be true in all cases.

NEW:

   The syntax allowed for news
   article headers is a strict subset of the "Internet Message Format" 
headers, making
   all headers compliant with this specification inherently compliant
   with [RFC2822].  Note however that the converse is not guaranteed to
   be true in all cases.

Comments?

---

From: Richard Clayton <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 16:38:55 -0700

In message <[email-masked]>, Harald Alvestrand
<[email-masked]> writes

>  with [RFC2822].  Note however that the converse is not guaranteed to

/headers/header fields/

>Comments?

- -- 
richard                                                   Richard Clayton

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary 
Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Benjamin Franklin 11 Nov 1755

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 06:39:15 +0200

> /headers/header fields/

In that paragraph the text could talk about complete "headers".

We're not interested in "non Internet Message Format" header 
fields, whatever that might be.  Are you sure that you prefer
"header fields" here ?

Bye, Frank

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 08:00:58 +0200

Richard Clayton wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
In this particular case, "headers" is correct - we're talking about the 
entire header for all messages.

Of course, the sentence would be true if we said "header fields" too.

---

From: "Charles Lindsey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 22:14:17 GMT

>   with [RFC2822].  Note however that the converse is not guaranteed to

I agree that mentioning "header fields" would be better. I prefer not to
use the RFC 2822 term "header" with its defined meaning, because so may
people will misinterpret it as "header field".

But the only change you have actually made is to remove the "bodies" from
consideration in the sentence, which is technically less accurate. So I
prefer the original.

-- 
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

---

From: "Charles Lindsey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 22:14:17 GMT