2012/3/6 Ángel González <keis...@gmail.com> > On 06/03/12 19:36, Kris Craig wrote: > > <nitpicking mode="on"> > > >> FIRST: > >> do NOT top post after get a reply below your text > >> or how do you imagine that anybody can follow a > >> thread where answers randomly before and after > >> the quotet text? > > Sorry. Sometimes I forget that there are some people out there who still > > use legacy non-threaded inboxes. I would recommend you consider > switching > > to Gmail or some other email client/service that supports threaded views. > > That will make it a lot easier for you to follow these threads. =) > Threaded MUAs won't help when fragments appear as > 3 > 1 > 2 > 4 > > In such cases, the people breaking the thread convention should > the very least remove all the other content. > And yes, his MUA does support threading. > > </nitpicking> >
I'll try this one last time: I don't know what the solution is. What I do know is that relying solely on, "people should...." is not a smart approach because people are going to break that convention regardless of whether they should or not. Yes, educating people is important, but that in and of itself isn't working. It doesn't work on any similar listserv I've subscribed to over the years. It just seems a bit naive to think that we can keep repeating the same pattern over and over and expect a different result. What I'm suggesting is that it would be to our benefit to think of a more sustainable approach. I'm not saying I know what that approach is, mind you. > > > > To clarify again, I was under the mistaken impression that <?= was a new > > alias for short_open_tag. My argument was (and still is) against > > short_open_tag. I do see some use in this new echo alias for templating > > purposes. > > > > --Kris > <?= has been there for ages, since PHP 3. > > ....And your point is? I initially thought this thread was saying that this alias had been removed and instead made to replace the short_open_tag. I stood corrected and we moved on. What does PHP 3 have to do with any of this? I think you've officially crossed the line from correcting somebody's error to beating a dead horse. ;P --Kris
