On Jun 7, Michael S. Schiffer said:
>It might not be a bad idea for the list to settle on a standard for quoting
>previous articles. (Such a standard could even go into an FAQ for the
>list, as and when.) I personally like Usenet-style quoting, where
>responses immediately follow the points they're responding to and
>extraneous material gets snipped. (I think it makes for a more
>conversational style.)
Yes.
>But many people like the "quote the whole thing and
>insert responses at the top" (which some e-mail programs encourage). At
>this point, I think a majority of people here are doing the first, but a
>noticeable minority are doing the second. I think exchanges go more
>smoothly if everyone (or at least most people) are following the same
>standard-- otherwise, in long exchanges, you wind up with posts where you
>can't tell who said what, or in what order. Just a thought.
Top-posting is evil. I've spent my entire Internet career with normal
quoting; then I started working at a place that uses Outlook, which
nearly requires top-posting. The contrast is amazing--it makes
conversations so much _stupider._
Interleaving quoting with your own text allows you to talk about
individual statements and paragraphs. With top-posting, it takes major
effort to provide enough information to discuss things.
Besides, Steve quotes properly, and we should all do what Steve does so
he doesn't get confused.
Rachael, who isn't biased, no not a bit....
--
Rachael From the Dilbert Newsletter:
Lininger "You should talk to her.
rachael@ She is a minefield of information."
daedala.net