Talk:Posting style

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Internet culture (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Corperate footers?[edit]

Seems a good place to mention the 'netiquette' surrounding gratuitous corporate footers appended to emails on mailing lists. i.e., please don't! --Dan|(talk) 11:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Saying that an RFC is "just a request for comments" is like saying that evolution is "just a theory". What makes RFC 1855 "informational" is its category. 69.30.58.238 (talk) 22:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

"Canonical" quote mark?[edit]

A recent edit called the ">" character "the canonical quote mark", apparently because the RFC 3676 calls it so.

However, that use of the adjective "canonical" is appropriate only because the RFC's proposal includes making ">" the *only* valid quote mark, in the proposed "format=flowed" subtype of the "text/plain" MIME type. The RFC needs to make ">" canonical in order to allow quoted lines to be cleanly unquoted, re-wrapped, and re-quoted. I do not think that ">" can be called "canonical" outside that RFC, except perhaps in the loose sense of "most widely used option".

By the way, observing that the previous edition of this proposal (RFC 2646, 1999) failed to get wide approval and is being retracted, I suspect that RFC 3676 will not become a standard either. Its proposal will only work perfectly if all participants in a discussion use agents that are compliant to it, and only if the original message is generated and tagged as "format=flowed". Even those agents will not work properly with the gazillion older messages that are sitting in people's folders and internet archives, which are either non-compliant or not tagged as "flowed". Note that any failure of a mail agent to properly handle quoted text in a non-compliant message will be perceived by users (rather rightfully, I would say) as a "bug" of the agent, rather than of the message. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 04:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Nope. text/plain; format=flowed is very carefully designed to be compatible with the normal text/plain format. It is widely used by Mac OS mail clients. And RFC 2646 is not "being retracted", as you claim, it's been obsoleted by 3676, with the latter a superset of the former. Jec (talk) 20:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Posting style. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:14, 9 November 2016 (UTC)