Re: [John Moreno <phenix@interpath.com>] Re: GNKSA and Gnus

[John Moreno <phenix@interpath.com>]

[Getting back to this a little latter]

Russ Allbery wrote:

>Furthermore, should Gnus comply with 7c, it would be in *violation* of
>what's likely to become the new news standard, given that it will almost
>certainly be recommended that References *never* be truncated if it can be
>avoided.

Are you talking about the USEFOR list and Simon Lyall's last proposal 
(Draft 0.6 References)?

If so then no, they would probably be implemented differently but they 
don't have to be.  The GNKSA isn't as strict as the USEFOR proposal but 
they don't conflict - a program that is compliant with the USEFOR draft 
can be compliant with the GNKSA.  Also (and this is something I should 
probably forward to USEFOR) Simon's proposal allows agents to keep just 6 
references, which IMO will result in agents doing just that.  I prefer 
the 1-3 rule and not to truncate before 998 - but a 3-3 rule and not to 
truncate before 998 would be just fine.  It'd cause the GNKSA to be out 
of sync but I imagine if the USEFOR draft is ever finished that the GNKSA 
will be updated.

Before replying to this I read all of the USEFOR messages with References 
in the body - and there's something which I think has been missed out on: 
In the case of the References header the MINIMUM is probably going to be 
the defacto MAXIMUM.  Not in the sense as some people seem worried about 
(not being able to handle longer without crashing) but, but in the sense 
that this is going to be the type of output newsreaders are going to do.

-- 
John Moreno