- From: Chris Ridpath <chris.ridpath@utoronto.ca>
- Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 10:09:43 -0400
- To: "John M Slatin" <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>, "Joe Clark" <joeclark@joeclark.org>, "WAI-GL" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> 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