- From: David Poehlman <poehlman1@comcast.net>
- Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 09:33:36 -0500
- To: "Charles McCathieNevile" <charles@sidar.org>
- Cc: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
I tried to clearly separate each part but guess I failed. Where interleaving gets really sticky is at the point where you are the third and beyond discusser in a thread. Trying to follow that conversation becomes a study in muddle. I have never worked with an email client where it did not take brute force to do anything but top posting, bottom posting or eiterh stripping the quoted portion. Even paring it down takes a bit of force. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Charles McCathieNevile" <charles@sidar.org> To: "David Poehlman" <poehlman1@comcast.net> Cc: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org> Sent: Sunday, February 29, 2004 9:24 AM Subject: Re: [WAI-IG] list policies (top posting for vision impairments) More context would have been better - clear separation of each partial quote, and clear information about who made it. I don't see systems that make this thing work yet (although I hope they will at some point). So I am happy when I get what I prefer, less so when I don't, and one way or other I try to read what comes down the line. (Clear and simple language is also important to being able to read stuff. Sigh) cheers Chaals On 29 Feb 2004, at 15:12, David Poehlman wrote: > Chaalls wrote in part: > I now have a graphical rendering of quoting, except that it isn't > all that accurate, and I still find it hard without more context > markers than Dave used in his interleaved contribution to this thread. > > [dp] What would have been better? > -- Charles McCathieNevile Fundación Sidar charles@sidar.org http://www.sidar.org
Received on Sunday, 29 February 2004 09:33:36 UTC