Shotwell in Lucid - OT stuff

[rikona]

Hello S.Allen,

Sunday, May 8, 2011, 7:39:02 AM, S.Allen wrote:

> On Sun, May 08, 2011 at 12:05:15AM -0700, rikona wrote:
>> Hello Jeff,
>> 
>> Saturday, May 7, 2011, 4:56:15 PM, Jeff wrote:
>> 
>> JG> On 05/05/2011 12:05 AM, rikona wrote:
>> 
>> >> I can see several small differences, but checking the past few dozen
>> >> emails, I see the same things, and you did not comment about those
>> >> emails. So I guess I don't see what you consider 'proper'. I can see
>> >> about 1> JB> 0-12 differences. Perhaps you could specify which of these you
>> >> consider to be the improper things, perhaps with examples, and the
>> >> proper replacements, also with examples.
>> >>
>> 
>> JG> He is referring to the quoted lines starting with initials, such as:
>> 
>>  >> JB>
>>  >> JB>
>>  >> JB>
>> 
>> JG> I've never seen that before myself and it is a bit annoying -
>> 

JG>> Why annoying - just because it's different? :-)

> Very annoying, and I assure it's probably only you that thinks it's
> cool. ;)

I can assure you that folks who have used it for quite a while in
complex conversations like it quite a lot. But, like most 'new'
things, people won't like it until they can see, first hand, the
advantages. And, of course, you have to have an email client smart
enough to do it, which most are not.

>> I think it is a much better way of quoting, but it's a shame that
>> there are almost no clients smart enough to do it. If you have a
>> longish, multi-split-up conversation between 3-5 people it is much
>> more obvious who said what, on a line-by-line basis. Especially true
>> with liberal snipping.

> It's not better

Those who have used it extensively would disagree.

> it's unconventional and flies against RFC rules for e-mail.

To quote Wikipedia -

"There is no standard declaring one quote-prefix to be "right" and
others to be "wrong" ". But some RFCs depend on one style, so it is
widely used.

> At the very least if you're going to use this extreme form of
> quoting put an blank line between the initial and chevron. That
> helps make it easier on the eyes.

Extreme... ? :-) Seems much less extreme than top posting in HTML -
now that's extreme. :-)

This looks like one of those relatively minor things that send some
folks ballistic. :-) But, it's easy enough to remove the intelligent
quoting in my client so it won't upset some of the folks here.

Is this OK?

-- 

 rikona