On 20.06.15 15:18, Will Yardley wrote: > On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 08:25:39PM +1000, Erik Christiansen wrote: > > ISTM that you're painting it more complex than the reality. It is easier > > than the above with the original simpler presentation, where each > > attribution begins at the top of its own '>' column. There is then no > > more effort than following a straight vertical line directly to the > > author. > > Yes, but most people don't use SuperCite,
Errr, Will, _I_ don't use SuperCite. The simplicity I've attempted to explain _is_ the default traditional quoting. The above text is just mutt's implementation of the de facto standard. One squint is enough to check who wrote what, 'cos it all just lines up. > so once some more people respond to a message, you could end up with a > jumble more like: > >> Humpbert> blah blah. The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. I > >> Humpbert> think that now is the time. > >> > >> Jane> I think something else. > >> > >> Some text here > > > > etc. etc. I don't know what is used to muck up the de facto standard in that precise manner. Heck, a poster can do it by hand if sufficiently determined. In the wild, you could end up with anything - even flowed text! The case I made, in response to the original attack on the standard, is that the standard works well when correctly used. I find it a peculiarly weak counterargument to demonstrate that failure to follow the standard is less effective than correctly following it. My response is "Yes. Thank you for agreeing with those who enjoy the standard." > I haven't used it myself, but seems like there are some corner cases > that I imagine would also present problems, such as when someone doesn't > provide a full name, or when more than one person being quoted has the > same name. That occurred to me too, but I was reluctant to add complexity to a case for the simplicity of the de facto standard. > Overall, I just think it's rude to use a style of quoting that's > non-standard, because once you end up with nested quotes and so on, it > can be a giant mess. The conventional way of quoting works fine *if* > people trim and attribute correctly. Thank you for agreeing at least 100%. I hadn't gone so far as actively criticising cutting across standard quoting with a contrary method, but I take your point - it is uncooperative. > In terms of how quoted material is *rendered* within a MUA, that's a > different issue, and especially with format=flowed text that's properly > encoded, I could see arguments for making the display view (not the > editor view) use, say, solid vertical lines, as some GUI mailers do. Who could disagree? Render it in pink or puce, by all means. Erik (A bit puzzled by apparent loss of synch, somewhere.) -- "Only that in you which is me hears what I am saying" - Baba Ram Dass
