[NNTP] Header terminology

[Russ Allbery]

Ken Murchison <ken at oceana.com> writes:
> Russ Allbery wrote:

>> Forwarding from USEFOR.  What do folks think about making the editorial
>> changes noted below for compatibility with mail terminology?  See the
>> end of Richard's message for the exact details; other than in the base
>> document (which might not be worth the hassle), the changes are trivial
>> and I don't think they reduce the readability any.

> The change seems reasonable to me.  I never really liked the overloading
> of the term "header".  In one case it means a single "header field", and
> in the other it means the entire message "header" (as opposed to the
> "body").

Yeah, that's exactly why the mail terminology is the way that it is, as I
recall.  I'm generally in favor of the change as long as it's not too
disruptive; it's just the sort of thing that's worth cleaning up while
we're in here and rewriting things and making NNTP play better with the
other children.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra at stanford.edu)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>