Re: terminology

On Jan 18 2005, Bruce Lilly wrote:
> On Mon January 17 2005 18:58, Laird Breyer wrote:
> 
> > If people start using header lines in this sense, I think there's the
> > inbuilt potential for confusion in some types of discussion.
> 
> It has been used precisely that way for quite a long time; in
> this case Charles is correct.

Being used that way previously does not necessitate future usage, if
the potential for confusion is felt to be big enough. There's always
the option of deprecating the usage of "header lines", as opposed to
actually changing its meaning.

That said, I doubt that "header line" in the sense of a single text
line is a sufficiently common topic of discussion to warrant its
excessive regulation.

>  
> > 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).
> 
> No, that's a "header field".

That's fine by me.

-- 
Laird Breyer.