...to be clear I understand not everyone uses the same tools and we have different needs. The thing that tends to rile me is the tone of the complaints.
When it's a legitimate matter of doing things to cooperate with list software, that's absolutely reasonable. When it's somebody's deeply held and arbitrary personal belief that top posting is ungodly and a scourge, that's completely different. Cheers. Chris On 27 Apr 2016 12:13 pm, "Chris Yate" <chrisy...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On 27 Apr 2016 12:04, "Andrew Bernard" <andrew.bern...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hi Chris, > > > > Although I started this thread, it was purely because David Wright had mentioned the difficulty to another user, as he had to me. I am not the one complaining! Wanting to be considerate of all folks on the list I took some effort to configure my Outlook in Office 365 to produce the correct output for HTML and plain text email with internet quoting style replies. It can certainly be done. There is no reason to ask people to stop using Outlook. What has changed is that its current default behaviour is the opposite of the past, and I was attempting to alert people to that. Even I was unaware. > > I absolutely blame Microsoft for that... It's confusing and overly difficult. The issue I've had is when working with people that use default settings, using "text only" (which seemed to be the only way to permanently achieve "traditional" quoting, at least in the past) is a big problem. > > > As to plain text readers, it is a perfectly valid and viable choice. I know that David Wright uses Mutt which is a very capable and effective UNIX mail client. I am pretty sure that David Kastrup uses Emacs for email as he has mentioned issues relating to the way images are included in emails in the list which my impact emacs users. For people working in a technical environment on a UNIX platform using a principally text based workflow, text based email clients can be very effective and very efficient. There is no sense in which they are outdated. So there are at least two and likely many more significant contributors to the community using plain text toolchains. > > Yes, of course it's a valid choice. And I recognise it's a particular issue for people using Accessibility tools. But if you think it's remotely "normal" to use emacs for email... Well... ;-) it's certainly not the path of least resistance, is it? > > > Urs Liska has written at length on the strengths and advantages of a plain text toolchain for lilypond in particular. I can’t see how the concept is old fashioned, or that the world has ‘moved on’. When intensively developing in a text based toolchain, plain text mail clients can make a lot of sense. > > > In my opinion, internet etiquette would suggest that one be considerate of the community of mailing list users, and try to accomodate everyone as best one can. I can’t see why this is not desirable. Or perhaps I am completely obsolete, and etiquette in general is now considered old fashioned. > > Andrew > > > > With all due respect, considerate is as considerate does. Shouting and screaming because you use some obscure tool that doesn't work the way 99% of the internet messaging tools in use work, and expect people to be accommodating of you, isn't considerate. > > Chris
_______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
