Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id QAA15757; Thu, 24 Apr 1997 16:58:24 -0400 Received: by CS.UTK.EDU (bulk_mailer v1.7); Thu, 24 Apr 1997 16:57:04 -0400 Received: by CS.UTK.EDU (cf v2.9s-UTK) id QAA15609; Thu, 24 Apr 1997 16:57:00 -0400 Received: from THOR.INNOSOFT.COM (SYSTEM@THOR.INNOSOFT.COM [192.160.253.66]) by CS.UTK.EDU with ESMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id QAA15599; Thu, 24 Apr 1997 16:56:55 -0400 Received: from eleanor.innosoft.com by INNOSOFT.COM (PMDF V5.1-8 #8694) with SMTP id <01II33WLTFSC99G4FA@INNOSOFT.COM> for drums@cs.utk.edu; Thu, 24 Apr 1997 13:56:10 PDT Date: Thu, 24 Apr 1997 13:57:36 -0700 (PDT) From: Chris Newman Subject: Re: dicating user interface behaviour In-reply-to: <970420093317.ZM2511@candle.brasslantern.com> To: Detailed Revision/Update of Message Standards Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Sun, 20 Apr 1997, Bart Schaefer wrote: > I'm beginning to think that it would be a good idea to collect all the > advice on how to use each of the fields when "forming replies" into a > single location, possibly an appendix. The discussion of each field > should still discuss usage for that specific field, of course; the > appendix would repeat the information. While I like the idea of having a section on replies, I very much dislike duplication of text. I'd suggest a separate reply section which goes something like this: (1) Defines "simple reply", references "originator fields" section (2) Describes "Re: " convention, references "Informational Fields" section (3) Mentions References / In-Reply-To, references "Identifier fields" section This would supply a "one stop shopping" section on replies without duplicating text.