Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.csd.uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!intercon!amanda@intercon.uu.net
From: amanda@intercon.uu.net (Amanda Walker)
Newsgroups: news.software.b
Subject: Re: Xrefs:, and the RFCs (was Re: Supersedes problems...)
Message-ID: <1429@intercon.UUCP>
Date: 1 Sep 89 15:55:39 GMT
References: <5200@looking.on.ca> <1989Aug30.052459.1166@vicom.com> <1989Aug30.204324.2675@paris.ics.uci.edu> <1989Aug30.225332.18770@brutus.cs.uiuc.edu> <1989Aug31.174054.15398@paris.ics.uci.edu> <1989Aug31.234545.23296@brutus.cs.uiuc.edu> <1989Sep1.005346.17308@utst
Sender: news@intercon.UUCP
Reply-To: amanda@intercon.uu.net (Amanda Walker)
Organization: InterCon Systems Corporation
Lines: 20

In article <1989Sep1.044044.6996@brutus.cs.uiuc.edu>,
coolidge@brutus.cs.uiuc.edu (John Coolidge) writes:
> All in all, I think Xref: is quite possibly a case where the RFC should
> be changed to reflect the fact that rewriting it and passing changes on
> is a 'safe' thing to do (this includes delete-and-pass-on).

I think, on the other hand, that the fact that Xref "needs" to be treated
specially is prime evidence that the article header is the wrong place to
put the information, since it is not information about the article itself,
but about the article's history on a given system.

Of course, I'm something of a radical in that I think that we should throw
out the whole idea of "article numbers" and just do everything by message-id,
but that will take even more of a complete rewrite than C news...

--
Amanda Walker
InterCon Systems Corporation

amanda@intercon.uu.net    |    ...!uunet!intercon!amanda