Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!hao!boulder!forys
From: forys@sigi.Colorado.EDU (Jeff Forys)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: superCedes and superSedes
Message-ID: <3574@sigi.Colorado.EDU>
Date: 21 Dec 87 19:59:39 GMT
References: <8711241022.AA12529@RUTGERS.EDU> <21871@lll-tis.arpa> <3622@hoptoad.uucp> <1034@maynard.BSW.COM> <1995@geac.UUCP>
Reply-To: forys@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Jeff Forys)
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Lines: 26
Keywords: Dictionary, specs
Summary: Problem for user interface, if anything.

In article <3622@hoptoad.uucp> sunny@hoptoad.UUCP (Sunny Kirsten) writes:
> In acknowledgment of actual usage, the software ought to accept BOTH
> spellings.  The computer should adapt to the nature of humans.  

In article <1995@geac.UUCP> gerry@geac.UUCP (Gerry Singleton) writes:
> Because both are considered valid, I must also agree with Sonny [sic]
> that both spellings must be accommodated in the software.

The `news software' (this is a pretty vague term) creates headers (e.g.
"Supersedes:") as directed by a formal specification.  This formal spec
chooses 1 way to do a particular thing.  It would be very short-sighted
to say that there exists only *one* way `supersedes' can be written (or
even two, when you consider other languages).

My point is, these are formally defined headers; they should *not* be
considered "English words", but rather <word>s.  Therefore, the `news
software' (i.e. inews) should only act on a "Supersedes:" header.

Of course, you are free to modify your user interface (rn, readnews,
vnews, etc) to convert the "formal spec" to "what you want to see"
provided you convert back to the spec when posting an article.

With that said, I now return you to the fascinating English debate.  :-)
---
Jeff Forys @ UC/Boulder Engineering Research Comp Cntr (303-492-4991)
forys@boulder.Colorado.EDU  -or-  ..!{hao|nbires}!boulder!forys