Scott Kostyshak wrote: > One is that someone might want to respond to multiple points from > different people. For example suppose that I write an email, you respond > to that email, then Bob wants to respond to points in both your email > and my email. If you did not cut anything out when responding to me, > then Bob can respond to my email and yours at the same time, and to me > this is often more readable than Bob writing two emails (one responding > to my email and one responding to yours).
If I reply to two different people I indeed prefer to write two different mails and thus new two subthreads start to develop. > Finally, consider > "If you edit the quoted text from prior messages, include sufficient > context so that the content is clear even if your archived message is > referenced at a much later date and in isolation from other messages." > > The key word in that is "isolation". Although it is not pretty with 10 > levels of quotes, it satisfies the "isolation" criterium, which I do > think is a worthy one. I get your point, but disagree. Even if you don't store mailling list for yourself, our archives have full threads accessible, so when I put link to the web archive in e.g. commit messages the context is usually few clicks away. > I don't really put all of the above to try to convince you that we > should quote in entirety (1. I don't believe that and 2. I know I would > never convince you :)). I just put it to present the other side. I get > the feeling that you think people leave messages in tact only because > they are lazy or crazy. I think there are rational reasons to do so, > (although the most common reason probably is laziness). Haha, no I do not think they are crazy. However as you pointed out yourself I think they often _are_ lazy :) Pavel
