Subject: Re: bug#72442: 31.0.50; Gnus or message.el doesn't handle international message reply subject prefixes and insults users

From: Björn Bidar <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2025 18:06:36 +0200

Eli Zaretskii <[email-masked]> writes:

>> From: Björn Bidar <[email-masked]>
>> Cc: [email-masked],  [email-masked]
>> Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2025 12:22:52 +0200
>> 
>> Eli Zaretskii <[email-masked]> writes:
>> 
>> > We could choose other words, but are we not allowed in general to
>> > express contempt towards silly decisions made out of ignorance?
>> 
>> The word standards-challanged sounds like ableism.
>
> I don't understand why.
>
> But I was asking a more general question, which you haven't answered.

Because the decision to localize something isn't silly.

>> If I read RFC 5322 correctly it only states:
>> 
>> "When used in a reply, the field body MAY start with the
>>  string "Re: " (an abbreviation of the Latin "in re", meaning "in the
>>  matter of")"
>> 
>> It doesn't say MUST (See section 1.2.1).
>
> Yes, because a reply can simply reuse the original Subject.  But I
> don't see how that is relevant.

It's relevant because it says the field body MAY start with Re: (and the
retention rules for it)  but doesn't stay other prefixes must not be
used. The issue might be also that before RFC 2822 there wasn't any rule
for how the Subject field should/could look like for replies (RFC 822).
When then non-Latin reply prefixes are already in use before
specification of that RFC it is understandable why some users expect
these prefixes.

>> So there isn't any ignorance but just no use of Latin for the messagge
>> prefix.
>
> The ignorance is not when Re: is not used, the ignorance is when it is
> assumed to be a short for "response", and especially be software
> developers who develop localized MUAs.
>
>> In any case manuals goal should educational, not there to insert
>> off-handed remarks of localization of Latin terms.
>
> I'm asking again: aren't we allowed to express contempt towards
> ignorance?  Isn't contempt towards ignorance an important educational
> device?

Towards what ignorance to try make it easier for users to understand the
prefix? While Re: might be easy to guess there's still a point in
translating the term.

But wherever my point was about the remark not any argument behind. 

>> I think this also related to (info "(standards) GNU Manuals"):
>
> Please report any problems you have with that document to the
> appropriate forum.  Here we are discussing only the Emacs manuals, for
> which we are responsible as part of the Emacs project.

I used manual mentioned above as reference. 

>>    Remember that the audience for a GNU manual (and other GNU
>> documentation) is global, and that it will be used for years, maybe
>> decades.  This means that the reader could have very different cultural
>> reference points.  Decades from now, all but old folks will have very
>> different cultural reference points; many things that "everyone knows
>> about" today may be mostly forgotten.
>> 
>>    For this reason, try to avoid writing in a way that depends on
>> cultural reference points for proper understanding, or that refers to
>> them in ways that would impede reading for someone that doesn't
>> recognize them.
>
> There's no "Latin culture" nowadays, so cultural references are not
> relevant here.  Latin is part of a general cross-culture educational
> level, and it's IMO reasonable to expect people using email to know
> where it came from, especially if they are designing and coding MUAs.

I am not talking about Latin as in the culture but the use a auxiliary
language inside the local language. Not every Latin term is used as
cross cultural term, if Latin is used at all in the specific local
language varies.

> Won't you expect a person who writes scientific papers to know what
> "Cf." or "QED" mean?

For English scientific papers sure. For German or Finnish not so much.
Finnish isn't my native language so my knowledge is limited, however for
German the use of Latin abbreviations is rare.

>> >> I don't think insulting or judging user who don't use English
>> >> as their native language is a good thing.
>> >
>> > As the text says, "res" is Latin, not English.  So this has nothing to
>> > do with native English speakers.
>> 
>> Those who use English might want to use "Re:" based on the Latin "res"
>> but that doesn't  mean everyone else uses this Latin based abbreviation.
>> So just because it's custom in the English speaking world doesn't mean
>> it's done everywhere else.
>
> "Re:" is used in many non-English locales, so it is definitely NOT
> English-specific.

That's true however the point wasn't that it isn't used but that there
is a point why some programs try to localize the term when many of their
users don't know the Latin abbreviations.