On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 08:25:39PM +1000, Erik Christiansen wrote: > On 19.06.15 17:11, David Champion wrote:
> > Are we really going to do this? > > ISTM that you're painting it more complex than the reality. It is easier > than the above with the original simpler presentation, where each > attribution begins at the top of its own '>' column. There is then no > more effort than following a straight vertical line directly to the > author. Yes, but most people don't use SuperCite, so once some more people respond to a message, you could end up with a jumble more like: >> Humpbert> blah blah. The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. I >> Humpbert> think that now is the time. >> >> Jane> I think something else. >> >> Some text here > > etc. etc. I haven't used it myself, but seems like there are some corner cases that I imagine would also present problems, such as when someone doesn't provide a full name, or when more than one person being quoted has the same name. Overall, I just think it's rude to use a style of quoting that's non-standard, because once you end up with nested quotes and so on, it can be a giant mess. The conventional way of quoting works fine *if* people trim and attribute correctly. In terms of how quoted material is *rendered* within a MUA, that's a different issue, and especially with format=flowed text that's properly encoded, I could see arguments for making the display view (not the editor view) use, say, solid vertical lines, as some GUI mailers do. w
