Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:114420
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.80.0.2.43\))
Date: Tue, 11 May 2021 20:59:08 +0200
References: <CAGBsUrePAey_fdAq0S_XtcnPhcXsB=tgnff0TUNfPo-AtTEheQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <6d8bdb3271108fd3aa9f7ad168746604839ce69b.camel@cmpct.info>
To: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
In-Reply-To: <6d8bdb3271108fd3aa9f7ad168746604839ce69b.camel@cmpct.info>
Message-ID: <8C532D9F-3F81-4095-8831-E1114DC15A78@cschneid.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Could we drop the bottom-posting rule?
From: cschneid@cschneid.com (Christian Schneider)

Am 11.05.2021 um 19:02 schrieb Calvin Buckley <calvin@cmpct.info>:
> - almost all modern mail clients are threaded, it's trivial to view
> context, so I want to see replies "above the fold"

Funnily enough the fact the mail clients are threaded nowadays is a good =
reason for me to use inline replies with rigorously trimmed down =
context: Someone who is actively following the thread will have minimal =
overhead to see what I'm referring to and people new to the thread can =
scroll to previous messages to get up-to-speed.

> - bottom posting goes against the grain of modern mail clients

First of all: I'm advocating inline quoting, not bottom posting.
I don't think this against the grain of modern clients. I have no =
problem going through my reply step by step, removing what is irrelevant =
to my reply and leave in what it relevant. At the same time it helps me =
to not forget something I wanted to answer. Yes, maybe mobile phones are =
a bit less well-equipped for this task but someone deciding to write =
detailed answers on a mobile phone should be willing to pay this price =
for the sake of the readers.

> I personally top-post (as it's the default for all the mail clients I
> use) when replying unless it's a point-by-point reply, in which case I
> reply inline.

I think you're pointing out exactly why a lot of long-time users of =
mailing lists prefer inline replies: Your personal (or even work) emails =
might often consist of nothing more than "I agree" or "Let's meet up", =
mailing lists are used for more in-depth discussions.

This means that the threshold for writing to the mailing list should be =
higher, i.e. a mail will probably contain multiple parts like an =
introduction, an explanation and a conclusion or question.
Therefore answers are often more complex too and reply to multiple =
points.

Another reason I sometimes hear at work is that you can forward a =
top-posting emails more easily to someone new to a thread. But this =
applies much less to a mailing list as people are normally subscribed to =
the list already and even if not there is an archive of all messages =
they can check for older messages if necessary.

Now while inline replies work for both point-by-point replies as well as =
short answers (you just strip down the original text to a minimum before =
adding your one-liner) the same is not true to top or bottom posting. =
They only work in simple cases unless you want to either copy/paste or =
(worse) paraphrase the original text within your answer. Both of these =
options are basically weaker versions of the inline quoting style (which =
as an additional bonus also support multiple levels of quoting).

Sure, some answers can be simple enough for top/bottom posting, but then =
again you have to ask yourself: Is this interesting enough for the 100s =
of people on this mailing list?
And if inline quoting works almost as well for simple answers, why not =
use it all the times so the reader does not have to switch reading =
modes?

- Chris