Sender: jwz@netscape.com (Jamie Zawinski)
Message-ID: <346951EF.3ACF897D@netscape.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 22:51:27 -0800
From: Jamie Zawinski <jwz@netscape.com>
Organization: Netscape Communications Corporation, Mozilla Division
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: drums@cs.utk.edu
Subject: Re: No comments in Message-ID/In-Reply-To/References
References: <199711112128.NAA03531@opal.eng.sun.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

John Beck wrote:
> 
> schaefer> I agree completely with Robert Elz's remarks in
> schaefer> <5814.879279791@munnari.OZ.AU>.
> 
> As do I.

As long as it's clear that "in-reply-to" is for human consumption,
not machine consumption, "me too."  (I think that's what Robert meant
by "not much different than Comments"?)

What I'm trying to avoid is a situation where an implementor would
be expected to do threading based on the contents of both in-reply-to
and references, and therefore need to disambiguate and/or combine them
somehow.  I'd prefer it to be clear that one does threading with
references, and does not do threading with in-reply-to: that, if
in-reply-to has a mission at all, that mission is not the construction
of message threads.

-- 
Jamie Zawinski         http://people.netscape.com/jwz/      about:jwz