From: Eugen Leitl (eugen@leitl.org)
Date: Thu Apr 18 2002 - 00:25:04 MDT
Your lines are overlong. I reformatted them manually, for time being.
On Wed, 17 Apr 2002, Hermit wrote:
>
> Eugene
>
> I recommend to your attention -
> [url=http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=31;action=display;threadid=11526]FAQ:
> Hermitish mail mark-up and citation V2.1[/url]
Can't read it properly right now (the daystar too bright outside), but it
it seems to apply to the web. I'm not using the web for discussions, I use
mailing lists, and I'm reading this in pine (moving to mutt in the next
few days). This is deliberate. (I do currently web front end-driven UIs
for a living).
> According to the relevant and applicable RFCs (RFC 821, RFC 822 RFC
> 934, STD 11, RFC 1049, RFC 1341, RFC 1342, RFC 1343, RFC 1512, RFC
> 1521, RFC 1522, RFC 1590, RFC 2045, RFC 2046, RFC 2047, RFC 2048 and
> RFC 2049 (amongst others) being most relevant. An appendix in RFC 2049
Um, if you need that many RFC refs for your argument, there's something
wrong with your argument. And I don't see how <80 chars line breaks need
to be covered in a RFC. Similiar that I don't need to be told to look
first left than right when crossing the street. It's a basic survival
skill.
> describes differences and changes from previous versions.),
> presentation, including line wrapping, is the responsibility of the
> mail client, not the originator. [quote]In contrast with paper-based
Most mail clients don't have problems with line wrapping. Nor does mine.
However, we're talking about citations. Are you going to give me a line
full of RFCs for citations, too?
> communication, it is interesting to note that the RECEIVER of a
> message can exercise an extraordinary amount of control over the
> message\'s appearance. The amount of actual control available to
> message receivers is contingent upon the capabilities of their
> individual message systems.\"[/quote]
This is a compleat bullshit. The amount of control the user can exercise
stops at the capabilities of the mail client. Here you have to assume
lowest common denominator, if you want to be inclusive. If you want to be
pseudoelitist, that's another matter entirely.
> While line lengths are limited, the limitation is to [quote]1000
> characters or less [RFC-821] [/quote] (of 7 bit ASCII) which implies
> that extended characters are not possible without escaping.
Those [quote] things [/quote] are extremely annoying. I hope you're not
moving to XML markup anytime soon?
> Hard line breaks are depreciated except at paragraph ends and
> alterations made by the system are intended to be removed prior to
> delivery.[quote]During transmission through heterogeneous networks, it
> may be necessary to force data to conform to a network\'s local
> conventions. For example, it may be required that a CR be followed
> either by LF, making a CRLF, or by <null>, if the CR is to
> stand-alone). Such transformations are reversed, when the message
> exits that network.[/quote] If your mail client is broken, you might
> consider reading and more particularly responding to posts on the
> bulletin board at [url]http://virus.lucifer.com[/url]
My mail client is not broken. Your assumption is. If you require me to use
a browser for discussion you've lost me as a discussion participant. I
might be legally blind. I might be a wearable user. I might be a 3rd world
user. I might be a security fanatic. All of this make browser use
prohibitive.
> As we have had discussions which go to 15 to 30 layers of nesting,
15 to 30 layers of nesting is ludicrous. The deeper nesting levels are
being routinely excised because they are no longer relevant to the current
thread. Regardless of markup, it is not possible to correctly attribute 30
layers of nesting even with a cinerama screen and elaborate color code.
> where a standard [b]65[/b] or [b]72[/b]column terminal using \">\"
> delimited indenting would use most of the line for the indentation, we
It would, except it doesn't. Because discussions involving 15 to 30 layers
of nesting do not happen.
If you base your assumption on ludicrously broken arguments no wonder you
arrive at a system that is badly usable via legacy systems.
Notice that the medium is self-selecting. Content-carriers are too smart
to use broken media.
> tend to use an alternate style for all but the most trivial
> discussions. This is fully discussed at the above reference. Where
> this style is not used, and the person writing has a significant
> contribution to make, one of the moderators may take it upon
> themselves to reformat their submissions. Unfortunately this takes a
Human intervention should not be required, period.
> significant amount of work when the posters (who should know what they
> themselves said) could do it more easily. Their unwillingness to make
> their posts readable generally suggests that they have nothing worth
> saying as they are not particularly interested in readability or
> presentation. An impression that most virians prefer to avoid.
Funny, this is exactly the argument I was using against your citation
practice. I've only sampled a short time window in the list archives but
there seems to be a steady decline in discussion quality. This also
applies to legacy mailing lists, but this forum seems to be affected in an
especially bad way.
I wonder if the medium is partly to be blamed.
-- Eugen* Leitl leitl
______________________________________________________________
ICBMTO: N48 04'14.8'' E11 36'41.2'' http://www.leitl.org
57F9CFD3: ED90 0433 EB74 E4A9 537F CFF5 86E7 629B 57F9 CFD3
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:46 MDT