Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-incubator-ooo-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-ooo-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A88B07192 for ; Fri, 30 Sep 2011 12:40:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 76112 invoked by uid 500); 30 Sep 2011 12:40:07 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-ooo-dev-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 76033 invoked by uid 500); 30 Sep 2011 12:40:07 -0000 Mailing-List: contact ooo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 75924 invoked by uid 99); 30 Sep 2011 12:40:07 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 30 Sep 2011 12:40:07 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of rgardler@opendirective.com designates 74.125.82.41 as permitted sender) Received: from [74.125.82.41] (HELO mail-ww0-f41.google.com) (74.125.82.41) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 30 Sep 2011 12:40:01 +0000 Received: by wwf10 with SMTP id 10so705747wwf.0 for ; Fri, 30 Sep 2011 05:39:41 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=opendirective.com; s=opendirective; h=mime-version:x-originating-ip:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=bJ0zCRvVZWPZc9N6khBXTVRNYjvPH9LksZVgkAYW8hQ=; b=Ttl75aHuJZqVROsLZAlVPDl6V2NuaSH7JHXW6j6OHxgRcEV0IqSteKz0E7cBWqrzSG 35xGQ1ZSFaTXcwRB8SnmI1FErpFQPbLs11hUNiajMZ2I5+k4jcSCspWMl9vSdlR5oynA hAlKk/9fgbmNMEjCcstl3p7l62o/0Uz2Hi9vM= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.227.149.143 with SMTP id t15mr13609523wbv.59.1317386381602; Fri, 30 Sep 2011 05:39:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.180.87.137 with HTTP; Fri, 30 Sep 2011 05:39:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [86.158.97.151] In-Reply-To: <004301cc7f6b$069d44a0$13d7cde0$@acm.org> References: <004301cc7f6b$069d44a0$13d7cde0$@acm.org> Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 13:39:41 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Top posting is bad From: Ross Gardler To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org, dennis.hamilton@acm.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org On 30 September 2011 13:18, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: > "bad" may be "unpleasant for you" but how about looking at the > interoperability challenges and not encouraging belief that there > is a silver-bullet, one-size fits all fiat when the only thing > that works is civility. There is no one-size fits all, this is true. But there is an "average size which suits more" (I have no idea why you bring civility into this, this was a perfectly reasonable request to improve the quality of our online communications based on a great deal of personal and collective experience of what works for ASF projects - and non-ASF projects alike). For open source projects the generally accepted "average size" is to use inline posting, e.g. "When quoting someone else's mail, insert your responses where they're most appropriate, at several different places if necessary, and trim off the parts of their mail you didn't use." from the "bible of open source project management" (my opinion) Producing Open Source [1] or if you want a wider discussion then "This style makes it easier for readers to identify the points of the original message that are being replied to; in particular, whether the reply misunderstood or ignored some point of the original text." (wikipedia [2]) or perhaps something a little more "official" "If you are sending a reply to a message or a posting be sure you summarize the original at the top of the message, or include just enough text of the original to give a context. This will make sure readers understand when they start to read your response. Since NetNews, especially, is proliferated by distributing the postings from one host to another, it is possible to see a response to a message before seeing the original. Giving context helps everyone. But do not include the entire original!" from Netiquette Guidelines (RFC 1855) [3] and back to an observation in Wikipedia: "Interleaved reply combined with top-posting combines the advantages of both styles. " [2] Ross [1] http://producingoss.com/ [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Choosing_the_proper_posting_style [3] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1855