Re: Link to Steve Maine blog entry on End Point Reference Comparison

Thank you, these and Dan's are both useful observations, and in some sense 
I invited them by mentioning my frustration with the situation regarding 
email threading.  User agents don't reliably follow RFC 2822 in practice, 
and it's common to find email threads that are very difficult to follow in 
W3C archives.  Nonetheless, my comment was meant as an aside and was 
perhaps inappropriate to this list.  I made it because there had been some 
informal discussion of tooling issues on the TAG call.  Nonetheless, if 
people want to have a serious discussion of email threading at W3C, I 
suggest that we find another place to do it.   Other TAG members may 
disagree and wish to continue here, but I would prefer to keep this list 
focussed on the TAG's agenda.  Thank you.

--------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn 
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
1-617-693-4036
--------------------------------------








Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
02/01/2005 04:03 AM

 
        To:     noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
        cc:     www-tag@w3.org
        Subject:        Re: Link to Steve Maine blog entry on End Point Reference Comparison


* noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com wrote:
>Somewhat impolitely replying to my own message of a minute ago, see also 
>the extensive post Melbourne thread starting at [3].  It discusses the 
>"lots of services behind one named gateway" use case that I mentioned on 
>the TAG call today.  If you really want to follow this, you should do 
some 
>rummaging in the January WSA archives;  for some reason, the archive did 
>not correctly put all the thread entries together. 
>
>Speaking of tools: it would really be valuable if someone could fix the 
>broken threading in W3C email archives.  Whatever heuristic is used does 
>not in fact work well at all.  In my own email program, I just strip 
extra 
>whitespace and leading "re:", indepdent of case, and then sort by date. 
>The result seems to be quite robust in presenting most threads, including 

>those situations in which wierd mailers insert extra whitespace.

Could you explain the difference between this implementation and

  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2005Jan/subject.html#145

There are exactly two "threads" as you put it,

  "NEW ISSUE: EPR comparison rule doesn't support Web services 
gateways/routers"
  "NEW ISSUE: EPR comparison rule doesn't support Web services 
gateways/routers [i048]"

Threading (as defined in RFC 2822, 3.6.4) is something quite different,

  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2005Jan/thread.html#145

Such presentation depends on user agents providing proper In-Reply-To,
References, and Message-Id headers; if they do not, user agents have to
guess what the parent message of a message might be. Your user agent
does not provide such headers; it would be really valuable if you could
either change its configuration or switch to a different user agent.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/

Received on Tuesday, 1 February 2005 12:29:35 UTC