MozillaZine

Full Article Attached Towards Mozilla 1.0

Tuesday June 26th, 2001

Gervase Markham recently posted his feelings on what a 1.0 release of Mozilla would be. Gerv has sent us the follow-up to that posting, including much of the feedback he received. To read it, click the full article link. Once you have read through it, we welcome you to post your feelings on what you think a 1.0 release would have. [As Gerv says, please don't post your favorite list of bugs, only the criteria for choosing what bugs to fix.]


#250 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cut the bull or put the bull in?

by gwalla <gwalla@despammed.com>

Saturday July 7th, 2001 6:03 PM

You are replying to this message

"You said, "Give me one good example of the GNKSA preventing someone from doing something they should be able to do." I did, and now you're saying, "But users are *not* supposed to post messages with empty subjects on USENET. It's bad netiquette. Which is the whole point."

If users were meant to not be able to post messages without subjects than the USENET would have been architected that way."

From RFC 1036 <http://www.landfield.com/rfcs/rfc1036.html> , which defines USENET:

"2.1.4. Subject

The "Subject" line (formerly "Title") tells what the message is about. It should be suggestive enough of the contents of the message to enable a reader to make a decision whether to read the message based on the subject alone."

According to the relevant RFC, the subject *should* describe the message. Since a blank subject doesn't describe anything, it is discouraged by the RFC.

Furthermore, Son-of-1036, the intended successor to RFC 1036, describes the format of the Subject header in EBNF <http://www.chemie.fu-berl…news/son-of-1036.html#5.4> :

"Subject-content = [ "Re: " ] nonblank-text"

There's nothing arbitrary about that restriction.

Then you write:

"I for one don't want to help build a browser that restricts my freedoms or the freedoms of others, just so the USENET can be a better place for you."

Get off your high horse. You're trying to make it sound like a violation of your first amendment rights. It's not, any more than having to put a properly formatted address on a mail envelope is a constitutional issue.