On 08.04.19 07:55, Roland Jollivet wrote: > I've thought about this, and don't agree. If people are following this > conversation, then it is fresh in their mind, and it's very easy to read > this post.
Err, Roland, if "it is fresh in their mind", why fullquote my entire post in your reply? Does that not completely deny the freshness thesis? And is it not far more user-friendly to juxtapose pro and con in-line, as here, without relying on unreliable wetware memory? > It irks me to have to scroll down to find where someone actually posted. That problem arises only when there is excessive quoting. When, as here, only the germane point is quoted, there is nothing to scroll past, and the minimal quote establishes the context of the response. And there's no need to read backwards. Granted, excessive quoting is too common on most lists. A good MUA does much to ameliorate the issue, though. In mutt, 'S' skips quoted text to the next block of reply in a flash. I also have mutt display quoted text and reply in different colours, so not only the "> " quotation markers differentiate. > So emails should be answered 'reflexivly'. If, however, if one searches and > finds a thread that is two years old, then you would scroll to the bottom > and start reading upwards. Are we now conflating the sequence of reading separate posts in a thread with the order of reading the lines in one of the posts??? I'm at a loss to see any connection. > Why should everyone post according to the chance event that someone > will read the post at some later date. A discussion for for people > participating, not for possible latecomers. It would surprise me if anyone does. We reply in-line in order to make the post intelligible to those who do not read backwards - first, second, or nth reading. [fullquote elided] Erik _______________________________________________ Emc-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users
