"Re:" in other languages

Jukka K. Korpela wrote:

Maybe you should fix your From field (everyone
who uses E-mail should know what the From field is for and what it shall
contain) before considering anything more complicated with E-mail.

While in the process of doing something more complicated with E-mail
-- *and* HTML -- I realized that I had always assumed that "Re:" was
correct in every language, but could not find a standard that says so
(possibly because of "Re" being a lousy search term). That's why
I asked. Microsoft and Lotus got it wrong, after all, so I decided
to explore whether perhaps I have been making an unwaranted assumption.

Please do not make assumptions about my abilities in areas that are
well documented based upon asking a question about something that
is not well documented and which both Microsoft and lotus got wrong.
That's rather insulting.

In a recent post you yourself wrote:

"I haven't studied what Word really inserts when you
give the command for inserting an "Optional Hyphen" (that seems to be what
MS Word calls it in the English version). But if I save a document in RTF
format from MS Word, "Optional Hyphen" gets turned into "\-"."

What does MS Word hyphenation have to do with HTML authoring?

If you wish to narrow the allowable discussion topics to only
HTML issues, you might consider starting with your own posts.

If your goal is to demonstrate the similarities between Usenet groups
and junior high school cliques setting one standard for the "in" crowd
and another for outsiders, you are doing a fine job of it.

In our last episode, Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/> pronounced to
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:

Jukka K. Korpela wrote:

Maybe you should fix your From field (everyone
who uses E-mail should know what the From field is for and what it shall
contain) before considering anything more complicated with E-mail.
snip
Please do not make assumptions about my abilities in areas that are
well documented based upon asking a question about something that
is not well documented and which both Microsoft and lotus got wrong.

Jukka's comment had nothing to do with your original question except to
say that you should be worrying about simpler matters first,
specifically the "From:" header that your newsreader sends with your
posts. Your from "email" address, as can be seen in my attribution line
above, is actually a URL. This is what Jukka was commenting on.

That's rather insulting.

Jukka's good at that. Unfortunately he's usually right. :-\

--
Mark Parnell
http://clarkecomputers.com.au

Mark Parnell wrote:

specifically the "From:" header that your newsreader sends with your
posts. Your from "email" address, as can be seen in my attribution line
above, is actually a URL.

Yes. I made a deliberate choice to violate that particular portion
of the RFCs, and I did so after careful study of the effect that
doing so would have on various newsreader clients and after consulting
with my news server administrator. In my considered opinion, requiring
every Usenet post to have an email address is about as silly as
requiring every web page to have one, and requiring users to use
a syntactically valid pseudo-email-address when they have no email
access (or choose to keep it private) is the wrong thing to do --
a user shouldn't have to guess whether an email address actually
reaches a person.

Spartanicus wrote:

localized "Re: " strings (in dutch it's particular it's "Antwort: " that
is used).

"Antwort" is German.

Oops yes you're right !
I've just checked, dutch is the Netherlands language... I won't do this
mistake again, thanks !

Guy Macon <" http://www.guymacon.com/ "@_are.you.happy.now_.invalid> wrote:

In my considered opinion, requiring
every Usenet post to have an email address is about as silly - -

Can you now please keep using the _same_ malformed From field?
It seems that you have decided to remain a nuisance, so it
would be nice if you kept the _same_ bogosity indicator in your
From field. Thank you in advance.

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html

Jukka K. Korpela wrote:

Guy Macon <" http://www.guymacon.com/ "@_are.you.happy.now_.invalid> wrote:

In my considered opinion, requiring
every Usenet post to have an email address is about as silly - -

Can you now please keep using the _same_ malformed From field?
It seems that you have decided to remain a nuisance, so it
would be nice if you kept the _same_ bogosity indicator in your
From field. Thank you in advance.

You just called a perfectly valid RFC-2822-compliant email address
"malformed" and "bogus." You should learn what the standards are
before criticizing others for not following them.

On Wed, 5 Oct 2005, it was written:

From: Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/

You just called a perfectly valid RFC-2822-compliant email address
"malformed" and "bogus." You should learn what the standards are
before criticizing others for not following them.

You are just ridiculous, man!

Bye