🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4a59gd$l74@gryphon.looking-glass.org>
   bnb@gryphon.demon.co.uk (Brian Blackmore) writes:
> 
> 1. Its pushes the orginal article out the way quicker.

In theory (ie if everyone used it, which they don't), it would result in 
a three character addition to each line ("MC>") only. When quoted 
material is quoted, it shouldn't be requoted because it already shows who 
the writer was.

Personally, where I have seen this implemented (there are some editors 
which will cope with this sort of thing), several lines alternating 
between one author and another are far less clear this way than they are 
with "standard" UseNet quoting.

That said, I find "> " much easier to read than ">", but again this is 
non-standard. Nobody has complained yet (quick, gimme some wood to touch 
:-)

> 2. It makes writting code to rewrap an article almost impossible and
>    certainly very difficult. Newsreaders are begining to do this now, both
>    the beta version of slrn and bnr (my newsreader) do this.

I have one editor which will cope with pretty much anything you might 
throw at it, and in general it does a very good job.

> 3. It doesn't look right when it itself is quoted.

I don't have a problem with that. I don't like it where it is applied to 
quoted material itself, though:

MR>>Something MR is quoting but didn't write himself....

> 5. I don't like it :-)

This is, of-course, the important thing. The point of it all is to make 
it visually easy to understand for the majority of people. If a 
significant number of people dislike it, then by using it you limit your 
readership. That said, I don't have any problem with John's quoting 
style. 

> 6. IMHO it is visually displeasing.

Isn't this the same point as 5? :-)

The problem tends to come once it gets mangled by someone further down 
the line. In general, everyone having noticably different posting styles 
helps, because as you get to know the people involved the quicker you can 
ascertain whether or not you want to read what is put before you. It 
would be a sad day when all posting stlyes are regimented to the extent 
that there is no freedom for individuals to express themselves. For this 
reason I have nothing against } as a quote mark, although characters such 
as " and . are much harder to read IMHO. Provided it makes what's quoted 
fairly obvious, it's okay by me.

(As for letting intelligent newsreaders work out what is quoted and what 
is not, I would recommend looking at the editor I have seen which can 
cope. IIRC, it goes into some detail explaining the logic it uses to 
decide who wrote what. It is SimTel/msdos/editor/ezquote4.zip (unless a 
newer version is there.))

Mark.
-- 
int MeaningOfLife (void) { return 42; }   // mcr@holly.demon.co.uk
function MeaningOfLife :integer; begin MeaningOfLife := 6 * 9 end;