>"SHOULD take ["Re: "} into account" and "continue to use ['Re; '] MUST d=
o"
>contradict the meaning of "deprecate". Of course, contrary to your earl=
ier
>indication, that text in no way deprecates use of "Re: ".
As I said earlier, I do not want to indulge in religious arguments
regarding the precise meaning of "deprecate". If you want to insist (in
USEAGE) that agents SHOULD NOT place any special interpretation on "Re: =
"
when they encounter it (which is text #2), then you are not going to get
a consensus in this WG.
--
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.u=
k/~chl
Email: c...@clerew.man.ac.uk 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
>In <4065F64...@erols.com> Bruce Lilly <bli...@erols.com> writes:
>>"SHOULD take ["Re: "} into account" and "continue to use ['Re; '] MUST =
do"
>>contradict the meaning of "deprecate". Of course, contrary to your ear=
lier
>>indication, that text in no way deprecates use of "Re: ".
>As I said earlier, I do not want to indulge in religious arguments
>regarding the precise meaning of "deprecate". If you want to insist (in
>USEAGE) that agents SHOULD NOT place any special interpretation on "Re: =
"
>when they encounter it (which is text #2), then you are not going to get
>a consensus in this WG.
My apologies. That message was sent to the wrong list (for reasons
unexplained).