Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-crocker-inreply-react-07

[[e-mail]]

Dave Crocker <[e-mail]> writes:
> I suppose a clarification could be added along the lines of:
>
> OLD:
>     The emoji(s) express a recipient's summary reaction to the specific
>     message referenced by the accompanying In-Reply-To header field.
>     [Mail-Fmt].
>
> NEW:
>     The emoji(s) express a recipient's summary reaction to the specific
>     message referenced by the accompanying In-Reply-To header field, for
>     the message in which they both are present. [Mail-Fmt].
>
> If a message is nested within a message, that defines a hard reference 
> boundary.  Something inside the nested message does not refer to the 
> containing message, for example.

After sending my previous message, I realized that I had gone to length
explaining why I considered the term "accompanying" to be ill-defined,
but I had forgotten to mention that in my review, I'd added "Or perhaps
this should be forward-referenced to the discussion in section 3."  Just
adding a reference to section 3 would clarify it, because section 3
covers the matter well.

Another version that would be good is "The emoji(s) express a
recipient's summary reaction to the specific message referenced by the
In-Reply-To header field of the message in which it is present."

Dale