Re: Experiment #2 with multiple Reference headers (was References with multipl

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005, Charles Lindsey wrote:

> I think we need the term "header line" when speaking of the individual
> lines of a header field that has been folded.

With respect, I think that would be a really bad idea, because 
non-experts will never interpret it that way. And MUAs often re-fold 
header lines anyway.

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005, Laird Breyer wrote:

> A "header line" as you propose is not a semantic unit, since folding
> white space can break the information at all sorts of places, and as
> the mail winds its way to its destination, folded lines can be
> rearranged several times in semantically equivalent ways.

Absolutely!

> To me, it's more natural to associate "header line" with the fully unfolded
> piece of the header which begins with a field name and colon, since such
> a "header line" is invariant under mail transport (as much as possible).

That's how I've been using "header line".

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005, william(at)elan.net wrote:

> And I do believe believe "header" and "headers" are what majority who talk 
> about email (and don't write RFCs) use nowdays.

Quite. That's why I started this discussion...

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005, Laird Breyer wrote:

> "header", "message header" or "mail header" refers to the full set of
> data before the empty line which marks the beginning of the
> body. (Actual layout and spaces play no role).

I think that usage confuses those who talk about email and don't
read/write RFCs.

> I do like to put the ':' after a field name to make implicitly clear
> that it's a header line being discussed (e.g. let's discuss the
> Received: line), even though the RFC (2)288 doesn't consider ':' part
> of the field name.

Yes; I do that too.

Regards,
Philip

-- 
Philip Hazel            University of Cambridge Computing Service,
[email protected]      Cambridge, England. Phone: +44 1223 334714.