On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 2:53 AM, Bob Archer <bob.archer_at_amsi.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 7:59 AM, Giulio Troccoli
> > <Giulio.Troccoli_at_uk.linedata.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I personally don't reply (on this ML) to emails in HTML or
> > RichText. It takes two seconds to switch
> > > to text-only when writing an email and even Outlook does not
> > convert it back to HTML or RichText.
> > >
> > > We all know why it's not good to top-posting but... (continues at
> > the bottom)
> >
> > When Usenet was king, you used text only, did bottom posting,
> > removed
> > excess quotes, and kept your signature down to no more than 4
> > lines.
> >
> > Much of that was due to bandwidth and diskspace limitations. Plus,
> > most usenet news readers were command line driven.
> >
> > * Bottom posting allowed you to just quote the stuff you were
> > replying
> > to. This was necessary because no one really kept the whole
> > conversation and downloading the entire thread just so you could
> > see
> > what the poster was replying to could take a while.
> >
> > Since most people bottom posted, someone who top posted simply was
> > not
> > following convention. Plus, they usually didn't whittle down the
> > post
> > they were replying to which wasted bandwidth.
> >
> > * In the old days, HTML was discouraged because most people used
> > mailx, elm, or pine which could only handle text. HTML was hard to
> > read, or came as an attachment that had to be manually downloaded,
> > and
> > then have Mozilla fired up, so you could read your email.
> >
> > However, times have changed:
> >
> > * We no longer have bandwidth limitations. The need for trimming
> > down
> > your quotes simply don't matter. In fact, many email clients like
> > Gmail will fold up quoted material, so you don't even have to look
> > at
> > it.
> >
> > * Microsoft Exchange did top posting which was NOT standard back
> > then.
> > Plus, it gave us another reason to yell at Noobs who used
> > proprietary
> > systems. However, most email clients now do top posting, so top
> > posting isn't the exception any more, but the default.
> >
> > Top posting allows you to keep the entire email conversation which
> > makes it easy to see what's going on. With top posting, my reply is
> > right at the top of my message which makes it easy to see. And, if
> > you
> > want to see what I am talking about, you can review the entire
> > conversation below my reply.
> >
> > * Most email clients handle rich text and HTML without problems.
> > Plus,
> > disk storage and bandwidth are no longer as limiting as they once
> > were. My entire email space may take up a few hundred megabytes at
> > the
> > most. MP3s take up more room, and I've got 10,000 of those sitting
> > on
> > my disk. HTML and Rich Text formatted mail isn't taking up only a
> > tiny
> > fraction of my hard drive. If I run short of room, I don't even
> > bother
> > tossing out email messages.
> >
> > Is there still a need to insist upon "text only" posts if everyone
> > can
> > handle HTML and Rich Text?
> >
> > If text only is important, then the mailing list should remove
> > formatting from rich text and HTML posts and reformat them into
> > plain
> > text replies. Almost all mailing list software can handle that. I
> > do
> > it for several non-technical lists where people tend to be animated
> > GIF happy, or to make sure people don't post attachments.
> >
> > As for the top posting vs. bottom posting debate: I already belong
> > to
> > a fanatical religion which believes that driving to McDonalds on a
> > Saturday afternoon and ordering a cheese burger would make me
> > liable
> > for two distinct death penalties. I'm therefore exempt from having
> > to
> > hold another fanatical belief. Whether you top post or bottom post
> > doesn't bother me one bit as long as you don't wear wool with
> > linen.
> >
> > --
> > David Weintraub
>
> Thanks for your informative post. So two items...
>
> 1. Are we saying the Html email is acceptable on this list? If so, can we
> get the tigris page modified?
>
HTML emails, IMHO still suffer from not being readable in the same way
across all email clients. Plain text will.
> 2. I also prefer top-posting replies also. For the reasons you stated it is
> easier to see what the "reply" actually is, and I can refer to the original
> if needed. Outlook does it, Gmail does it... the two systems I use for
> email.
LOL - "Outlook does it" - not really a valid argument for one way or
another.
> That said, do most people here prefer bottom/inline replies? Or do most
> people prefer top-posted replies?
It's Horses for courses. It would depend on the context of what the reply
was, and what it was replying to. Inline replies allow the splitting out of
the original email, and replying to each individual point (e.g. this email,
for example). Also, inline replies are extremely useful when doing code
reviews via email (checkout > commit > email > review) - see the svn-dev
list for examples.
Top posting, to me, is a bit backwards. If you need to read a long
conversation from the quotes, it's scroll down to the last message, read
(probably involving more scrolling. Then, scroll up and read the reply
(which might involve scrolling down). Rinse and repeat. Bottom posting
allows the reader to start at the top, and continually scroll down to read
the entire conversation.
> Has a vote been take recently? I see "please don't top post" mailed a lot
> here... but I wonder if that is because it is really preferred... or is that
> they way it's always been done?
I see the "please don't top most" messages a fair bit (probably about 1 or 2
a week).
Regards,
Daniel B.
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=1065&dsMessageId=2414532
To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org].
Received on 2009-11-04 23:07:22 CET