MOO-cows Mailing List Archive
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: An alternate proposal for MOO-Cows

> Missing Keywords:
> 
>  I think there should be a keyword [QUERY] and [REPLY] to match [SUMMARY].

Yeah, actually I was thinking about this type of stuff as I sent off the
message.. the SUMMARY keyword was kinda stuck in there at the last minute..

I'm not exactly sure what we need a REPLY keyword for, tho, since tacking on a
Re: prefix when replying is pretty standard behavior for mailreaders already..

>  Personally, I think the mailer should bounce anything with a subject line
>  that starts with "Re:" and contains "[QUERY]" or does not contain "[REPLY]"
>  or "[SUMMARY]" (or maybe turn the [QUERY] into [REPLY]).

It kinda depends on how we define QUERY..  If QUERY indicates a request for
private responses (and a corresponding intent to post a summary later), which
might be a good way to do things, then there shouldn't be a REPLY at all, just
QUERY and SUMMARY, and anything posted with a Re: and a QUERY should be
bounced (if we get too complicated with this, tho, it'll be hard to understand
all the rules, so we should be careful).

>  I don't like PROG/APROG (which looks to me like the "a" in sexual/asexual).
>  I prefer ADV-PROG.

Well, I started with that in my notes, but part of the point was to try to
keep the keywords relatively short (so they don't completely obscure the
subject line of the message).  I figured that since it's something for people
who know what it is anyway, it wasn't so essential to make it a fully
descriptive name and it'd be more productive to keep it short..

>  I also don't like MOOCOWS because the list name has a hyphen.  I suggest
>  either MOO-COWS, or if the name was chosen not to collide with the list,
>  just COWS, BEEF, CATTLE, CHEWING-CUD, or some other unrelated-yet-related
>  word.

Well, likewise, it's an extra character which serves no real function..  To
tell the truth I'd rather make MOOCOWS even shorter if possible, but then I
guess it probably won't be used that much anyway, so..

>  I'd rather see the keywords first than last, since some mail readers 
>  truncate headers, and since keys aren't likely to be infinite in length.
>  I'd rather see square brackets than parens since they don't occur so much
>  in running text.

If you'll note in the proposal, the most important keyword goes first (for
that reason), but the additional keywords, if any, are less important (often
would just be used for filtering or sorting by automatic mechanisms) and it
was my feeling that in most cases cutting them off would be less detrimental
than cutting off the actual (often more descriptive to human eyes) subject
line of the message.. 

Take, for example, an announcement about a bug fix for LambdaCore's $network
object..  which subject line would you rather have your mailreader chop off
the end of when listing messages to you?:

  NEWS: Bug patch for $network available [SECURITY] [CORE] [LAMBDA] [NET]
or
  [NEWS] [SECURITY] [CORE] [LAMBDA] [NET] Bug patch for $network available

..anyway, those are just some of the reasons behind why I suggested things the
way I did.

Oh, and about the brackets vs. parens, I don't really care, and actually
neither would the filter system under the proposal I presented..  it would
only check to make sure there was a valid KEYWORD-colon-space at the beginning of
the message, etc..  The idea was that convention would be enough to regulate
however the additional keywords were handled..

Anyway, brackets are fine by me.

-R  
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Alex Stewart - riche@crl.com - Richelieu @ Diversity University MOO
                         http://www.crl.com/~riche
           "For the world is hollow, and I have touched the sky."
Home | Subject Index | Thread Index