On 2020-07-25 00:20:22 +0300, Maxim Tarasov wrote: > Here are some other things to consider about "Re:" > > 1) It is recognized by RFC5322: > > 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") followed by the contents of the "Subject:" field body of > the original message. > > 2) There will be difficulties with localizing it. Here is a common > scenario described in Wikipedia[1]: > > The email client will typically check for an existing "Re:" when > deciding whether or not to add one in front of the subject. However, > clients may use different abbreviations if the computer is set up > for a non-English language, e.g. "AW:" for German, and this can mean > that a conversation between two participants can build up convoluted > subject lines like "Re: AW: Re: AW: ..". > > So unless there's a very good reason, I think we should avoid > localizing this portion.
I completely agree. And a "localization" in the Subject string would also introduce ambiguities (so that supporting such localizations would be a bad idea). For instance, I used "AW" as an English acronym in the past, thus with a meaning completely different from "Re". It could be possible to localize it in the interface only, though, just like "From:", "To:", etc. are now localized in Mutt. But this would make more difficult to control the presence of "Re:". -- Vincent Lefèvre <vinc...@vinc17.net> - Web: <https://www.vinc17.net/> 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <https://www.vinc17.net/blog/> Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)
