Rockbox.org home
release
dev builds
extras
themes manual
wiki
device status forums
mailing lists
IRC bugs
patches
dev guide



Rockbox mail archive

Subject: Re: issues with ipod/Top-posting

Re: issues with ipod/Top-posting

From: Mike Holden <rockbox_at_mikeholden.org>
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 15:38:03 +0100 (BST)

Matthew Caron said:
> ScottLearned wrote:
>> Since the majority of Rockbox listors are sighted, I feel out of
>> respect we should make more of an effort to reply under the original
>> post.
>> I don't mind doing this and am sure most blind/visually impaired users
>> on this list wouldn't either.
>
> On the flip side of this coin, I don't think it's too much of a stretch
> to ask sighted users to follow RFC 1855, which states:
>
> "Be brief without being overly terse. When replying to a message,
> include enough original material to be understood but no more. It is
> extremely bad form to simply reply to a message by including all the
> previous message: edit out all the irrelevant material."
>
> One might also make the point that tossing a reply up at the top, but
> including several hundred lines of history is equally bad form.

Spot on.

Whether sighted or unsighted, a brief reply history enables the reader to
understand what the poster is saying and understand the context of the
reply. Nobody (again, sighted or unsighted) wishes to wade through
hundreds of lines of text to find a "me too" reply.

By bottom-posting, the chronology and thread of previous posts are clear
and easy to follow.

Top-posting means that you have to read backwards from the bottom up to
understand context, which is a pain. It must be especially difficult for
unsighted readers using software to read backwards from the bottom to get
the context of a post.

A mix of top- and bottom- posting is of course totally incomprehensible.

-- 
Mike Holden
Received on 2006-07-31

Page was last modified "Jan 10 2012" The Rockbox Crew
aaa