Re: Quoting style

[Ted Zlatanov]

On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 19:18:15 +0300 Teemu Likonen <tlikonen@iki.fi> wrote: 

TL> On 2009-09-14 10:55 (-0500), Ted Zlatanov wrote:
>> On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 05:59:03 +0200 Slackrat <g-no-ose@azurservers.com> wrote:
>>> Would you be willing to share your method of getting the poster's
>>> initials to preceed the quotted texf as per above?
>> 
>> Supercite will do it. It looks bad in Outlook and web interfaces,
>> though, so choose your audience carefully.

TL> A minor rant: I think nobody should use Supercite and its "TL> " or
TL> "Teemu> " quoting. 

OK.

TL> As everybody knows the de facto standard is "> " (with nesting) and
TL> it's the most widely supported style. People are used to read nestes
TL> >'s so it's the easiest style to read and understand. If you
TL> (general "you") want to write messages for other people (not just
TL> for yourself or for other limited audience) then please use the
TL> standard and forget about all weird custom stuff.

TL> There are some groups of people who tend to use bad quotations:
TL> Microsoft Outlook users, Gmail users, Emacs Rmail and Supercite users.

On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 18:28:39 +0200 Richard Riley <rileyrgdev@gmail.com> wrote: 

RR> Agreed 100%. Some usenet groups have become almost unreadable because of
RR> "custom" indent or indent not being used at all. Some MS SW users dont
RR> indent at all and just followup after a "-------" seperator or often
RR> nothing at all. Truly horrible.

RR> While freedom and choice is good, making it too easy for people to break
RR> standards using something like gnus is not a good way forward IMO.

Sorry, but we'll have to disagree.  Feel free to use any prefix you
like, but I find the person's initials valuable as a quoting prefix,
especially in reply to multiple posts as you see above.  Also, if by "de
facto" you mean "used by the majority," top-quoting Outlook-style is the
de facto standard.

Ted