Sven, et al -- I've tried to prune this back as much as I could; I hope I haven't gotten rid of important context!
...and then Sven Guckes said... % % * David T-G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [020312 16:31]: % > ...and then Sven Guckes said... % > % * David T-G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [020312 15:25]: ... % > % David - I will you as as soon as use revert to standard % > Did you mean to say that you'd show % > me how or did you mean something else? % % yes - "show" (it was missing). That's not the only thing that was missing; what's with the "use revert"? % % > When all of you folks move from >_ to > then *perhaps* % > you can come back and argue with me some more. % % well, ">_" is standard with many programs, so one ... % "be nice to Mozilla and Outlook Express users". Actually, Outhouse seems to have no problem supporting %_ for quotes. I don't know whether I like that or not, given how much I love to bash it, but there it is. % % > I'm not terribly impressed with yours. No problem, though. % % well, at least my attribution contains the persons address % so you can still use this info when following up to my mail. Yep. One of the reasons I'm not impressed with it, actually. % it is vital on mailing lists as there is no repository as there % is with news servers from which you could request the parent message. IMNSHO it's up to you to keep the parent message for as long as you want to be in the thread. I realize that that may not sit well with some folks, but I'm also the sort who would like to respond to the original message, rather than a quoted quoted reply, anyway. % % with your attribution this is simply no possible - % unless you have the parent message to mine. Yep. Agreed there, though I don't think that's a bad thing. % % moreover, an attribution without any "words" can be used % on any mailinglists - independent of its language. I want an attribution that reflects my conversational style. Yes, I'm also anal-retentive and a bit obsessive and want unambiguous date strings (and accurate clocks, grumble grumble) where dates are needed (though you'll note that I don't feel that that is terribly important in an attribution), but my writing style is distinctly casual. An introduction like my attribution fits me much better. If I *were* to construct an attribution that had these sorts of things in it, I might or might not include the address (see above) but would include not only the timestamp but the Message-ID: as well; *that* is starting to get unambiguous enough for me. % % > % (and learn to delete unnecessarily quoted line blocks!) % > Hey, I thought I trimmed enough. % % you send lots of quoted empty lines - didn't you notice? Actually, I didn't; I try not to take away lines at the expense of readability, which can be defined differently from person to person, but I do try to trim up the junk. % % > use two-digit years these days and I don't have a conclusive opinion ... % % I am aware that the short date form like 020312 could be mistaken for % 1902-03-12 or 2102-03-12 - but so far it has not been a problem. ;-) My biggest issue with it, since I can figure it out manually as well as the next guy, is that it doesn't sort or machine parse well. I should obviously make my scripts and ls wrappers smarter, right? :-) % % Sven HAND :-D -- David T-G * It's easier to fight for one's principles (play) [EMAIL PROTECTED] * than to live up to them. -- fortune cookie (work) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.justpickone.org/davidtg/ Shpx gur Pbzzhavpngvbaf Qrprapl Npg!
