On 15 Mar 2005 00:18:10 -0800, "Fuzzyman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Bengt Richter wrote: >> On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 14:48:25 -0000, "Alex Stapleton" ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >Whilst it might be able to do what I want I feel this to be a flaw >in urllib >> >that should be fixed, or at least added to a buglist somewhere so I >can at >> >least pretend someone other than me cares. >> > >> Someone cares about top-posting. Please don't ;-) > >Actually for many methods of reading usenet posts, and particularly for >archived usenet posts - e.g. google groups - selective top posting can >make threads a lot easier to read..... > >Heresy though it may be..... > >;-) > ISTM reading top-posts is only easier when the top-post is a single global comment on the quoted text following. Once someone introduces interleaved comments to focus attention selectively, the simple last-in-first-read stacking of top-posting no longer applies. Attribution of quotes becomes difficult if a consistent methodology is not adhered to. It is difficult to make effective selective comments on a multi-faceted post using only top-posting. The fact that top-posting works well for single-concept posts with single-concept comments IMO doesn't compensate for the confusion introduced when methodology switches in a thread -- and a switch to interleaved posting is almost inevitable once a post accumulates more than one thing to comment on. Hence IMO it's best to start out in interleaved mode and stick with it ;-) Regards, Bengt Richter -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list