Am 23.07.2015 um 18:06 schrieb "Valeri Galtsev" <galtsev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>
> On Thu, July 23, 2015 10:45 am, Johnny Hughes wrote:
>>
>> The main reason actually is chronological order. But not just for the
>> reply .. but for IN-LINE posting.
>>
>> In a discussion where you need to make points in-line and where you only
>> need some of and not all of the other posts, something that happens
>> frequently on mailing lists, it is very much easier to read that type of
>> collaborated message in chronological order.
>>
>> I mean, you don't read a book or a newspaper article or a blog post from
>> bottom to top, right? Why would you read communications from bottom to
>> top? And it is not really even bottom to top. If you take 4 emails of
>> 10 lines each (and 40 lines total) .. it is 75% down to 100% (original
>> mail)... then up to 50% and read down to 75% (2nd mail), then up to 25%
>> and read down to 50%, then up to 0% and read down to 25%. What if
>> someone made you read blog posts that way, or books or newspaper articles?
>>
>
> OK, the shortest I can re-formulate your message is: on mail lists we are
> collectively writing the book for someone else to read (much less
> communicating with each other in real time ;-) Any accepted convention is
> better than no convention: save everybody's time. Suits me (as far as mail
> lists are concerned).
I consider email as an asynchronous communication,
therefore "book style convention" is recommended.
--
LF
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
