Google| Subject | Re: Will Tony apologize? (was: Re: Colonial Photo & Hobby) |
| From | Sandman |
| Date | 2014-05-02 11:23 (2014-05-02 11:23) |
| Message-ID | <slrnlm6p6l.5vn.mr@irc.sandman.net> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
| Follows | Eric Stevens |
| Followups | Eric Stevens (13h & 59m) > Sandman |
In article <o6m6m959jqstvicndf42guuolb3in2ehd5@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens wrote:
Of course not. There are a multitude of news reader out there and I don't have access to them all for obvious reasons.SandmanEric StevensSandmanSandmanEric Stevens
<> <
> <
> <
> <
> <
> <
> <
>
Then there is Agent which you ignored: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/31088803/Agent%20Thread.jpg
I didn't ignore it. I am showing how the standard way to display threads is done, and how Agent is non-standard.
You are? Where can I watch?
There are none so blind as those who will not see.All support is quoted above.Eric Stevens
*All*? There are no possible ways of doing things other than the ways displayed in the examples you have cited above?
I said there was a standard way of displaying hierarchies that is also in compliance with the RFC. You questioned that claim and I showed eight news clients, most of which are the most used news clients on usenet today (see my earlier post about usage stats).
That doesn't PROVE that this is the standard way to show threads, but it SUPPORTS the claim, seeing how we have only ONE examples of a client that by default threads in a non-conforming way, and at least eight that does.
So, currently, Agent is outnumbered by 8-1, which certainly substantiates the claim that there exists a standard and Agent is not following it.
If you were to show me seven more news clients that does it the way Agent does it, then we have a "draw" as far as support comes, and I would either have to concede that it's not a standard, or find an order of magnitude more clients that does it the correct way.
See, you can't "counter" my examples with the allusion that there might possibly be other clients that does it the way Agent does it.
I made a claim and I supported it thoroughly. I do enjoy supporting my claims to a point where they can't be disputed, but I don't have the time, or access, to every single news client in the world - and unless you can come up with a good counter example, there is no need for me to do so.
But in this case they aren't, as I have shown.Eric StevensSandmanSandmanEric Stevens
You keep saying that, without support. Most readers have standard news clients that does NOT (I repeat - NOT) separate a post when the subject is changed, and honor the sequence of articles as stated in the headers. Your claim is based on "the reader" being only users of one of the worst news clients known to man - Agent.
My claim is based on readers being people who want to follow particular subjects and not follow others.
But the question isn't about whether or not people want to "follow particular subjects", but about what constitutes a thread.
It is possible they are the same thing.
This is usenet, Eric. It's a really really old protocol. Yes, all of this was in place back in 1987. Which makes it rather ironic that AgentSandman
Anyway, you've been clamoring for more references, and I've instead tried to make you explain your own claims and thought that when you tried to do it, you would have understood by yourself how they're not working.Take a look at section 2.2.5 of RFC 1036. I'll quote it here:Eric Stevens
Do you *really* want to quote an RFC which dates back 27 years:
a document for which steps were taken to supplant in 1997? See https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/news.software.misc/-vJ2XG06W3k/LP4GQB_DHyEJThe changes that have been suggested over the years have never been about the References header and its use.
See also http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/usefor/
"These RFCs obsolete the previous standard for the format of Usenet articles, RFC 1036, and the draft document known as "Son-of-1036" which was published as RFC 1849. "None directly obsoletes 1036, but offer clarifications. It's interesting you should bring up RC 5322 (mentioned at the page) because that's my next stop, if you hadn't had enough:
RFC 5322, section 3.6.4 Identification fields:
"The "In-Reply-To:" field may be used to identify the message (or messages) to which the new message is a reply, while the "References:" field may be used to identify a "thread" of conversation."
Ready to admit that a thread is defined by the References header, yet?
By RFC's that explicitly says that the References header is used to determine the thread.Sandman
Also note this part:"The purpose of the "References" header is to allow messages to be grouped into conversations by the user interface program."And as such, if Agent does NOT group messages together using the References header (as you claim it does), it is in violation of this RFC.Eric Stevens
Which is obsolete.
Apart from that it makes no alowance for the ill-educated person who changes the subject of the discussion in the midst of a thread. We know these exist.Huh? How is changing the subject of a thread due to lack of education? What are you on about?
They are - including the first Message-ID and (at least) the last two Message-ID's is enough for the news client to determine what thread it belongs to.SandmanEric Stevens
The section also talks about what the "follow-up" command in a news client should do; It should generate a copy of the subject, prepending "Re: " to it if it isn't already present, and it should also either create the References header with the post's Message-ID in it, or append the post's Message-ID to the already existing header field.
... unless the References header exceeds 998 characters (not including the <CR><LF>) in which case it can truncate the header as long as it continues list the first message ID and the ID of the last two messages. None of these things are as simple as you would have them.
All threads are fragmented unless you have every article in it. The method is to have all message in a long list, then traverse that list finding the parent, if any, to every post - and if that parent is in the list, move the post as a child to that post. This means that in a threaded view, the "first" post can itself be a child to a post that the news client does not have available.SandmanEric Stevens
It also notes that news clients need not utilize the References header, but that is for those that display it as a flat list (like Tapatalk for iPad), but those clients should still use this header accordingly, for those that DO (i.e. those that groups conversations together via the References header).
Those that *group* conversations solely by the reference header can get into trouble displaying fragmented threads.
-- Sandman[.net]
2014-04-14-
