* Rob 'Feztaa' Park <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-04- 1 01:03:29 -0700]: >Alas! John Buttery spake thus: >> So, while I'm definitely interested in following the standards, there >> doesn't seem to be one. > >It's not a formal standard in any sense of the word "standard"; it's >more like a deeply rooted tradition that goes all the way back to the >early days of USENET (maybe even earlier).
Well, I try to follow convention, subject to the following fall-through logic (does this typify this group or what): 1) Actual draft standards, at least I think that's what they're called; whatever an RFC is called after Al Gore puts his Creator seal of approval on it or whatever and it actually becomes officially carved in stone 2) RFC specifications 3) Accepted norms 4) What I think is a good idea Of course, I try to temper #4 with as much expert advice as possible...hence my participation in this thread. Basically, absolutely the > character is in there, even if no RFC says it is. What doesn't seem to be carved out yet is the presence or absence of the space following (or not following) it. So, I'm left with #4. The argument for _not_ having the space is increased space for deep quote nesting; the argument for having the space is increased parseability by editors and MUAs (and maybe even people, though that's a secondary concern for me really...I can count). So, based on that, I'm going to be changing my quote "character" back to "> ". As always, no decision final, any additional comments/input welcome. -- "Quick! Hide behind this pane of glass!" "You fool, you can see through it." "Not if you close your eyes!"
msg26462/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
