Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 14:58:42 -0400 To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at WSFA.org> From: "Mike B." <omni at omniphile.com> Subject: [WSFA] Top posting and net standards [was: Re: [WSFA] Re: Quoting] Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at WSFA.org> At 01:42 PM 4/21/05 -0400, Paul Haggerty wrote: >I'm having trouble understanding how a few people writing up a web-site >stating that in their opinion one way is better than another somehow mutates >into a fact that is somehow bindable on the rest of the human population. When the "few people" are a working group of the IETF, you really should listen. The first link I posted is just some folks trying to explain why top posting is a bad idea. The RFC they link to (and that I posted in a followup) is the IETF's suggestion about it, and says about the same thing, but without the reasoning. IETF is "Internet Engineering Task Force"...the folks who specify the protocol standards for the net, worldwide. You aren't required to pay attention to them if you don't want to; you can go start your own internet with whatever standards you prefer. RFC 1855 isn't mandatory, it's just a good idea to keep everyone on the same page and limit problems, confusion and arguments, same as any other book of good manners. There are good logical reasons why top-posting is a bad practice, and it's also officially poor manners as well. There are, however, no fines for violating them...other than threads like this one. >I've seen this anti-top posting crusade spreading through usenet lately >and I still can't figure out how it became a commandment. RTFM. It includes a bibliography where some history may be found. >Like Gayle, I've been on the net since it >was two universities and a string, it has only been in the last two or >three years that everyone has been screaming about top-posting. You must have been keeping to a small corner of the net. I've been on the internet since '93 (other nets before that) and I've seen objections to the practice since day one in lots of newsgroups and mailing lists. On some mailing lists I've been on anyone who top-posted generated a request to knock it off, and if they objected to complying, a thread like this one got started. It got old fast. In general top-posters were only a small step above AOL users...unless they were both. ;-) >I think everyone needs to take a deep breath and remember that top-posting >and bottom-posting both have their places depending on circumstance and >just let the matter go. Yes, top posting has its place, but it isn't in internet newsgroups or mailing lists. Within intranets at companies or other organizations it might even be preferable, but not on the net in general. That's why RFC 1855 says what it says. There's a lot more in that RFC too that's worth reading BTW...the top posting thing is a very small part of it. >Yes, following a long thread is difficult if everybody top-posts and keeps >all the quoted material. But it is also really annoying to have to page >down >through a half dozen or more screens just to read a one line response. Both are violations of the guidelines in RFC 1855...for the reason you give among others. >Both styles have problems depending on how they're used and in my opinion >while neither is inherently "The Best", top-posting is easier to deal >with most of the time. I disagree, as do most net users...hence the standard being what it is. When used properly, interleaved, or bottom, is best. "Used properly" includes a lot of trimming of course, and no "me too!" posts. Quoting is for reminding, not restating. I've got no more to add to this, so I'm dropping out of the thread, with hopes that it will end soon. If this comes up again, just remember this thread and take it as re-posted so I don't have to, ok? :-) -- Mike B. -- Someone said to Voltaire, "Life is hard." Voltaire replied, "Compared to what?"