IchBin wrote:
[snip]
>> On 28/9/06
> Mark Trumpold wrote:
> > Thanks for the quick reply.
> >
> > So I just edit the page. I will give it a whirl.
> >
> > A couple of concerns, wont people be able to see this page?
> > Is this site wide authentication?
> > The '@admins' you included is that for a group?
> >
> > Thanks Mark
> >
> >
> [reordered message]
>
> Mark don't TOP POST it makes this message hard to read if looking at it
> for the first time and later.
>
> I think I can answer you but hard finding the question because of order.
>
IchBin, it sounds like you are really rubbing Mark's nose in it by
re-ordering part of the thread, offering that you can answer the
question, and then not offering any answer because it would be hard
because of the order.
I don't want to start another extended thread about posting etiquette
like we had last year. Maybe the best way to avoid that (or start a
dialog) is to begin with where we ended up last year, with Pm's post:
- - - -
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.web.wiki.pmwiki.user/26424/focus=26531
- - - -
I'm amazed how long this thread has wrong. It appears some sort
of statement from me is indeed needed.
Like PmWiki, HTML, and all sorts of other protocols, I tend to follow
the "be liberal in what you accept and strict in what you produce"
guideline. I think the mailing list should do the same. I definitely
don't want to make people feel unwelcome simply because they aren't
aware of various forms of email etiquette.
In general I prefer plain text emails, and inline responses
(with liberal deletion of quoted text). But these aren't hard-and-fast
rules -- there are times when top-posting can be acceptable, e.g.,
when making a relatively short response to an entire message as
opposed to the individual points within the message. For example,
I think everything said in this thread is wrong.
On December 25, 2005 Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
> ....
is probably better than having to get to the bottom of
On December 25, 2005 Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
> ......
> [300 lines of quoted text, none of it cut]
> ......
I think everything said above is wrong.
When responding to a message, I also tend to respond in the same
form as the original, so that if someone top-posts in a message
to me, then I top-post back (unless I'm replying to individual
points of the message, in which case I'll use inlined responses).
As far as HTML vs plain text is concerned, I think it's useful
to advise people that plain text is preferred, but we don't
have to be strict about it. If it's inconvenient for someone
to post in plain text (and there are times where this is the
case) I'd still prefer to see their post in HTML as opposed to
not-at-all.
I like for PmWiki to be as forgiving and accepting an environment
as it can be, and this extends to the mailing list. We can advise
people of better ways to do things, but failing to do so shouldn't
be cause for exclusion.
Individuals are of course free to do what they want -- if
someone wants to ignore all HTML or top-posted emails, that's
perfectly okay. Ultimately we can rely on community standards
to take effect -- over time, people who fail to follow the standards
tend to get ignored.
(Side story: On some other lists I subscribe to, I
automatically delete or ignore posts from some authors simply
because I know from past history that over half of their posts
will quote a long sequence of messages, and then have a short
one paragraph (and unhelpful) response at the bottom. If they
at least put their stuff at the top I'd at least scan it,
but as it is now I figure if it's not worth their time to make
it easy for me to read, it's not worth my time to read it.)
Pm
- - - -
Pico
--
__ /
/ /
/___/ _/ ___/ __ /
/ / / / /
_/ _/ ____/ ____/
>>>===pmwiki at ben-amotz.com===>