Re: A Quick Reminder....

RFC1855/FYI28: ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc1855.txt ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/fyi/fyi28.txt Found via the RFC-Editor archive search: http://www.rfc-editor.org/ Ok, so this RFC discourages top posting, but it was also written 13 years ago when Usenet and other threaded/flat message board type systems were prominent. From doing some quick searches, the predominant opinion seems to be "bottom posting was the style back then, most new online services lean toward top posting". Here's quick rundown of services and if they position the cursor at the top or bottom when replying: Gmail: top post Yahoo Mail: top post Microsoft Outlook: top post Hotmail: positions cursor on "To:" line, tabbing down to body puts cursor at top Squirrelmail 1.4: positions cursor on "To:" line, tabbing downt to body puts cursor at bottom Comcast Mail Center: top post I actually prefer inline responses when there are many different things being responded to, but top-posting when there's just a point or two and I'm already familiar with the conversation. Anyone coming in at the middle of the conversation can refer to what's below if needed, but don't have to look at it if they already know what's going on. Top-posting, to me, is definitely more efficient and preferable. Do people on Blackberry's and iPhones really want to scroll past a bunch of stuff they've already read to get to the actual current message? Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying bottom posting is bad. I'm really just pointing out that it is a preference issue. And if there's a problem with archives and digests, maybe the archives and digests should be updated. It shouldn't matter if people top- or bottom-post, as long as they trim messages so there's not a lot of superfluous junk involved. THAT's really what causes issues in archives and digests in my experience.. regardless of top/bottom posting. It seems that bottom posting was more of a necessity years ago and that many people cling to it as "absolute ettiquette" due more to tradition and preference than anything else. As for hypocrites... I'm not sure how that applies. Unless you're saying people who adhere to strict web standards but still top-post are hypocrites. If you can show me an actual ratified "standard" that says we must all top post, then maybe you have a point. But since the only 'official' document is an RFC (and my requested comments appear above) from 13 years ago, then I'll have to call bunk on hypocracy in this case. It would be like saying "I was in the military and we all addressed our superiors with SIR <msg> SIR! therefore, since I'm your boss, that's the communications standard you must adhere to.. despite not being in the miiltary". Ooops.. I violated another standard. The period should be within the quotes ... military." Crap. I'm breaking the internet by not following standards. Oops. I mean. "Internet" (capitalized). Just deal with the fact that this is a "holy war" issue that nobody going to convince anyone to change their mind about and let's move on. If it seriously causes a problem with archives and digests, then someone needs to update the way messages are presented in the archives and digests because it's antiquated. I recommend using a nice threaded email service like Gmail and not using digests.. You get a similar effect, but without all this crazy confusion when someone top-posts or someone doesn't trim their messages properly. -TG ----- Original Message ----- From: Aschwin Wesselius <aschwin@illuminated.nl> To: Daniel Brown <parasane@gmail.com> Cc: TG <tg-php@gryffyndevelopment.com>, PHP General List <php-general@lists.php.net> Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 16:14:03 +0100 > But I don't know who started with top-posting which is against the > netiquette RFC. > > People sticking with strict HTML, coding standards in PHP, valid XML, > nice pixelf*cked CSS etc. and not posting below a message on a list are > a bunch of hypocrites. Simple as that. > -- > > Aschwin Wesselius