I'm going to top-post this time, just for fun!
The debate about top v bottom isn't really important even today. There
is one problem with bottom posting that I hate - that people tend to
just type their reply at the bottom, leaving the entire conversation
above it. Meaning I have to scroll down (sometimes pages) to get to the
useful bit. Back in the day, people snipped the irrelevant parts and
replied immediately below the text they were replying to. Some people
still do this on the ML, and may I thank them now for the trouble they
take doing it.
The only issue I have with top v bottom then is mixing the two styles.
If the ML doesn't state one, then whoever replies first gets to choose
whether the conversation continues top-posted, or bottom. Anyone
top-posting a reply to a conversation that has stretched downwards (and
vice versa) needs to be slapped.
Outlook is a big issue for this though, as it's really awkward to reply
to HTML mails using the bottom-post method, as a result lots of people
do the 'Microsoft way of least resistance' and just top post. Outlook is
the biggest problem to all the ML woes it seems - HTML by default, no
easy way to change to get > marks on reply, and top-post by default.
So I think we should change the ML rules to allow top-posts and HTML,
discourage bottom-posts appended to the bottom of a unedited reply,
encourage consistency and clear formatting, and allow posting etiquette
to evolve over time.
Andy
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Weintraub [mailto:qazwart_at_gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2009 4:43 PM
> To: Giulio Troccoli
> Cc: Bob Archer; users_at_subversion.tigris.org
> Subject: Re: Plain Text vs Html
>
> 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
> qazwart_at_gmail.com
>
> ------------------------------------------------------
>
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=1065&dsMessageI
d=2414
> 452
>
> To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-
> unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org].
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=1065&dsMessageId=2414704
To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org].
Received on 2009-11-05 14:10:48 CET