On 2013-09-17 01:40, Glenn Plas wrote : > On 2013-09-17 01:02, André Pirard wrote: >> On 2013-09-16 11:52, Glenn Plas wrote : >>> If you want to be serious about this then a new topic should be >>> initiated by sending a new mail instead of a reply with a new >>> subject. Every decent mailclient out there -usually- does not use >>> the subject to 'thread' mails. instead it uses certain fields in the >>> mail headers. I noticed that mail-man (the mailing list handler of >>> THIS list) does not seem to add those headers (in fact, they seem to >>> be removed from outgoing mails, I cannot find those fields like below). >>> >>> example of those are : >>> >>> References: <20130914070031.83C7A1561AD6@server21> >>> <CANHB50fV+JQ_DYnu91QYaURcRyAKk-pqbHGFMQmYzQZAeC=x...@mail.gmail.com> >>> <5236af60.2050...@byte-consult.be> >>> In-Reply-To: <5236af60.2050...@byte-consult.be> >>> >>> This is what the (E)mailers usually use when exchanging mail >>> correspondence (non mailing list) when hitting 'Reply' >>> >>> To be complete: top-posting (putting comments ABOVE the previous >>> messages) is usually really a big nono in the mailing list fields. >>> You should put follow-up comments BELOW the original mail. >>> Personally, It doesn't bother me too much, but on plenty of mailing >>> lists people go absolutely nuts over that fact , more true on long >>> email exchanges, as you need to read a long reply from bottom to top >>> in order to follow the conversation. Of course many clients let >>> you sort using the subject field. >>> >>> If you make sure to bottom-post, automatically you'll be removing >>> the non-relevant sections at the top to compact the response. I >>> admit , when being too quick, I'm a sinner too against that rule >>> once in a while. Some lists have their own requirements, but in >>> general bottom-posting is considered Netiquette, top-posting isn't. >>> It makes you scroll twice to follow a conversation. (go down to find >>> the start, then read up). >>> >>> English : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style >>> >>> >> You're right, my main gripe is against the mailing list software >> mailman itself because it does not allow HTML. It does archive a HTML >> version of the archive but when you look at it on the server you see >> HTML code. >> By "allow HTML", I mean "simple HTML": text style, lists, tables etc, >> not eccentric showy stuff. >> I've sent an e-mail to mailman about this and they replied >> >> * that we, technical people, do not need HTML because we don't use >> it much. >> > > I think you misunderstood my mail. At the very bottom of that partly > quoted mail I stated : . I am very much against using html in mails. > I believe HTML belongs on a website, not a mail. I prefer > plain-text.. Sorry :) > > Glenn No, I didn't misunderstand your e-mail and I said 'You're right'. My topic is not what the users do but what mailman does and that's why my quote is partial. I restored the full English text here above, and no, what I had read does not contain "I am very much against using html in mails" and my text was not related to that phrase. I collaborated with the ietf guys for e-mail and MIME+HTML and I can tell you they are not dumb-asses. Millions of people are using what they did. People forget that the first reason to be of HTML is HT, hypertext <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypertext>, which is as elegant as necessary to write sensible text, relegating with links the details to further reading. That does not belong only to Web site; some people even wrote HT books. It was also used in the precursors Gopher, WAIS etc. I sometimes use titles and index in long e-mails. I rarely write Web pages to send someone a message. What the ietf intended to include in e-mail is the simple HTML I speak of, not the extravagant one. It allows tables to be included in e-mail. It allows HT links to be used without interspersing text with ugly URLs. It allows basic formating. Your reference, which isn't at all against HTML, advocates the <blockquote> as a better way to quote text to avoid paragraphs ending up like this one or the last one you quote. <blockquote> certainly does not belong to websites!!! See following e-mail.
Cheers, André.
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
