Quoting, attribution, etc.

[Jordan Abel]

(Note I'm adding a CC to OTChatter because I think the bit about
quoting/attribution/signature is an issue that needs to be discussed
among the community)

On 8/16/06, Ceridwen Keeley <ceridwennight at hotmail.com> wrote:
> This is Vexxy Elf.  I was surprised to see the term 'smart-ass' in your
> recent post:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/157011

I've actually never perceived the term as an insult of any degree of
seriousness - cultural misunderstanding, sorry.

> One other point: you did not attribute your responses to yourself.

I did sign it. I was under the impression that only one or the other
was required.

>  In
> shorter posts, it is easy to keep track of who is 'speaking'.  But in longer
> posts, it can get confusing, especially for our members who use screen
> readers.  Even with the chevrons!

One would think that a mail reader intended to be used with screen
readers would provide special handling for quote markers.

> If you could just write your name above the responses which do not come
> immediately before your signature line, we would appreciate it.

If this is required, why require a signature line at all? I initially
wanted to do this _instead_ of using a signature line, and was only
grudgingly given permission to do so - make up your minds.

I would like to say one thing - this is likely the only place on the
entire internet where people "attribute" their own responses. No
matter what someone's circumstances might be, screen readers, english
as a second language (the same pattern can be observed in other
language mailing lists and newsgroups, so that's really not an issue),
surely they encounter the standard pattern (shown below) everywhere
else, which is why I don't understand why it isn't even allowed at all
here.

Subject: Some stuff
From: C

A wrote:
> B wrote:
>> [stuff B says]
>
> [stuff A says]

[C's reply]
--
C's signature

I would go so far as to say I doubt that screen readers don't handle
this pattern, given how universally common it is on usenet and on most
mailing lists. Can anyone who uses such software weigh in?