first object property

[RobG]

In comp.lang.javascript message <nKGdnQ1p0Kvjk1_bnZ2dnUVZ_hninZ2d@comcas
t.com>, Tue, 14 Aug 2007 16:20:13, Joe Attardi <[email protected]>
posted: [...]

Are you this much of a dick to everyone?

That's hard to say, without asking everyone or expecting an honest
answer from dick. But there seems to be no evidence to the contrary.

*Your* attribution, however, like dick's, contains less than recent
draft recommendations have considered adequate.

Can you explain why you think it's deficient? The latest draft
recommendation I can find is dated March 2005:

<URL: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-usefor-useage-01.txt >

In regard to attribution it says (in part):

The attribution SHOULD contain the name and/or the email address of
the precursor's poster, as in
or

Which indicates attribution requires only a name or e-mail address and
maybe the newsgroup from which the follow-up is being made in the case
of cross-posting.

Perhaps you have a different reference?

 

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

In comp.lang.javascript message <nKGdnQ1p0Kvjk1_bnZ2dnUVZ_hninZ2d@comcas
t.com>, Tue, 14 Aug 2007 16:20:13, Joe Attardi <[email protected]>
posted: [...]

Are you this much of a dick to everyone?

That's hard to say, without asking everyone or expecting an honest
answer from dick. But there seems to be no evidence to the contrary.

*Your* attribution, however, like dick's, contains less than recent
draft recommendations have considered adequate.

Can you explain why you think it's deficient? The latest draft
recommendation I can find is dated March 2005:

<URL: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-usefor-useage-01.txt >

In regard to attribution it says (in part):

| Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
| months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other
| documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts
| as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in
| progress."

Do not feed the troll.


PointedEars

 

[Dr J R Stockton]

In comp.lang.javascript message <[email protected]

Can you explain why you think it's deficient? The latest draft
recommendation I can find is dated March 2005:

The one referred to only gave dick's name; the draft suggests (though
does not require) the E-address as well. Clearly, just giving a name is
in practice inadequate, as names are non-unique and often false.

Your attribution is, while not deficient, defective; it lacks the year,
and uses the low-grade time format, and introduces a new left part to
which spam is sent. But you are not responsible for configuring the
details of the system you use, only for choosing to use it, for which
reasons both good and bad exist.

<URL: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-usefor-useage-01.txt >

In regard to attribution it says (in part):

The attribution SHOULD contain the name and/or the email address of
the precursor's poster, as in
or

Which indicates attribution requires only a name or e-mail address and
maybe the newsgroup from which the follow-up is being made in the case
of cross-posting.

Perhaps you have a different reference?

If I had meant that it did not comply with minimum standards, I would
have said so more directly.

That document is formally not authoritative and is expired; but thanks
for finding it as earlier today I failed to find it elsewhere. However,
it clearly represents the views held by CHL and suchlike - and those are
always to be respected.

The MAY part which follows is IMHO excellent advice, so I choose to
follow it; it should imho be mandatory, so that (/inter alia/) those
reaching articles posted by a dick following-up on ancient articles can
see that ancientness expressed in the body.