Re: Top-Posting And Guideline 3.1

> So let's all just write as clearly as we can and get back to worrying
> about *Web* content instead of email.
>
I believe that email is web content. Our messages are archived and served up
as HTML pages so how can they be otherwise?

The guidelines speak of "all web content" and I don't recall seeing a list
of exclusions.

Cheers,
Chris


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John M Slatin" <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>
To: "Joe Clark" <joeclark@joeclark.org>; "WAI-GL" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Sent: Monday, June 28, 2004 4:40 PM
Subject: RE: Top-Posting And Guideline 3.1


>
> Top-posting isn't inherently inaccessible. Neither is inserting
> responses below the text of the original (though the latter can become
> very complicated and difficult to follow when that text itself contains
> a chain of arguments and responses and all the garbage that email
> clients add to indicate quotd text, which in turn gets transformed by
> cutting and pasting, etc., etc.).
>
> If top-psting is well done, the writer takes care to summarize and/or
> quote the specific points she or is responding to, and makes clear the
> context of the discussion. Readers who choose to do so may then wade (or
> slog) through the chain of correspondence in the "original message."
> When top-posting is badly done, readers *have* to slog through all that
> stuff to have any chance at all of figuring out what the discussion is
> about.
> I think the same holds for responses that are interwoven with the
> original message.  Do it well and you provide the context for the
> discussion.  Do it badly, and everyone's slogging through anyway.
>
> So let's all just write as clearly as we can and get back to worrying
> about *Web* content instead of email.
> John
>

Received on Tuesday, 29 June 2004 10:10:10 UTC