Skip to main content

Top-Reply in Emails and More-Than-Text Body Formats

I commented to Fighting the top reply over at Signal vs. Noise and felt like writing a small bit about it here. The basic issue was where to place your reply in an email, as any modern mail client will quote the original text and most of them place your cursor right above it. I have a couple of angles to take on this, but the conclusions all arrive at the same place.

When I still worked at an office and spent a decent portion of my time tracking efforts and monitoring going-ons throughout the company, I used Microsoft Outlook, which was enforced by the corporate IT people. Although it did bug me that I was unofficially forced to top-reply, I admit that in certain situations I do it myself, anyway. Typically, my view is that if the conversation shouldn't go on for a long time with the need to review a chronological log of what was said, and is only between two parties who will know what was said before, top-reply is really OK. When you are on a mailing list or newsgroup or in a reply-all cycle with thirty other people, it can get a little confusing trying to track the conversation.

I have probably slipped even more once I started using GMail, because it makes it easier to track the converstation by showing me all the actual emails, with quoted text collaposed. This might seem lazy, but I am a firm believer that the software is here to make our lives easier, so why do we ignore so many ways it can do that? Why not take the next step and stop quoting text by prepending a bracket or indenting it and come up with some extensions to the email protocols, maybe some new headers or a modified Multi-Part header, which would let us specify "Quoted Text" and "Reply Text", with the reply associated directly with the quoted text.

How we want this to be arranged on screen when we write it and how someone wants to read it, should not be based on the order of the bytes representing the glyphs that display the text we read. It shouldn't be a convention, it should be a preference and that preference should be free for all. This all reminds me a lot of a vast HTML-vs-PlainText-Email flame I was on the painful end of a while back, all because some people still want to use some console based email apps (which is fine) that don't support Multi-Part messages properly (which is not fine).

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Interrupting Coders Isn’t So Bad

Here’s a hot take: disrupting coders isn’t all that bad.

Some disruptions are certainly bad but they usually aren’t. The coder community has overblown the impact. A disruption can be a good thing. How harmful disruption might be a symptom of other problems.

There are different kinds of disruptions. They are caused by other coders on your team, managers and other non-coders, or meetings throughout the day.

The easiest example to debunk is a question from a fellow developer. Imagine someone walks over to your desk or they ping you on Slack, because they have “one quick question.” Do you get annoyed at the interruption when you were in the middle of something important? You help out your teammate quickly and get back to work, trying to pick up where you left off. That’s a kind of interruption we complain about frequently, but I’m not convinced this is all that bad.

You are being disrupted but your team, of which you are only one member of the whole unit, is working smoothly. You unstuck …

CARDIAC: The Cardboard Computer

I am just so excited about this.


CARDIAC. The Cardboard Computer. How cool is that? This piece of history is amazing and better than that: it is extremely accessible. This fantastic design was built in 1969 by David Hagelbarger at Bell Labs to explain what computers were to those who would otherwise have no exposure to them. Miraculously, the CARDIAC (CARDboard Interactive Aid to Computation) was able to actually function as a slow and rudimentary computer. 
One of the most fascinating aspects of this gem is that at the time of its publication the scope it was able to demonstrate was actually useful in explaining what a computer was. Could you imagine trying to explain computers today with anything close to the CARDIAC?

It had 100 memory locations and only ten instructions. The memory held signed 3-digit numbers (-999 through 999) and instructions could be encoded such that the first digit was the instruction and the second two digits were the address of memory to operate on. The only re…

How To Care If BSD, MIT, or GPL Licenses Are Used

The two recent posts about some individuals' choice of GPL versus others' preference for BSD and MIT style licensing has caused a lot of debate and response. I've seen everything as an interesting combination of very important topics being taken far too seriously and far too personally. All involved need to take a few steps back.

For the uninitiated and as a clarifier for the initiated, we're dealing with (basically) three categories of licensing when someone releases software (and/or its code):
Closed Source. Easiest to explain, because you just get nothing.GPL. If you get the software, you get the source code, you get to change it, and anything you combine it with must be under the same terms.MIT and BSD. If you get the software, you might get the source code, you get to change it, and you have no obligations about anything else you combine it with.The situation gets stickier when we look at those combinations and the transitions between them.

Use GPL code with Closed S…