On Fri, 1 Sep 2006, Trans wrote:

> I always wondered if an xml-like notation might catch on for this
> instead. Yes, it's nice when your email client automatically adds the
> '>'. And it look pretty good. But it certainly bites when that doesn't
> happen or the lines get broken up in a odd manner. I would think
> something like:

not at all.  i use pine and/or mutt.  vim is my editor for both.  i can take
this section

> instead. Yes, it's nice when your email client automatically adds the
> '>'. And it look pretty good. But it certainly bites when that doesn't

highlight it visually using 'ctrl-v (movement keys)'  and then format it with
'shift-f'.  formatting is context sensitive and knows about email quoting,
line width, indenting, etc.  therefore the output is

> instead. Yes, it's nice when your email client automatically adds the '>'.
> And it look pretty good. But it certainly bites when that doesn't

note that it knew what to do with the '>'

>  <quote author="Floyd L. Davidson">
>     2) Prefix each line of quoted text with a '>' character, and
>        mark each level of quoted text with an initial attribution
>        line that identifies who authored each level.  That results
>        in a long running exchange that follows this form:
>  </quote>
>
> Would be much easier for email clients to work with. They could easily
> "pretty-print" these sections.

but you'd have to do something like this for literal xml:

   &lt;quote author=&quot;Floyd L. Davidson&quot;&gt;

ick!  ;-)

regards.

-a
-- 
what science finds to be nonexistent, we must accept as nonexistent; but what
science merely does not find is a completely different matter... it is quite
clear that there are many, many mysterious things.
- h.h. the 14th dalai lama