Re: Re WIT

• Mail folder: WWW Talk Apr 94-present
• Next message: Tim Berners-Lee: "Re: Proposal: WIT over USENET or Mail"
• Previous message: Robert Denny: "HELP! Need large httpd access log"
• Maybe in reply to: Eamonn Sullivan: "Re: Re WIT"
• Reply: Dave Raggett: "Re: Re WIT"

Errors-To: listmaster@www0.cern.ch
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 1994 10:14:47 +0200
Errors-To: listmaster@www0.cern.ch
Message-id: <9406130811.AA04052@www3.cern.ch>
Errors-To: listmaster@www0.cern.ch
Reply-To: timbl@www3.cern.ch
Originator: www-talk@info.cern.ch
Sender: www-talk@www0.cern.ch
Precedence: bulk
From: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@www3.cern.ch>
To: Multiple recipients of list <www-talk@www0.cern.ch>
Subject: Re: Re WIT
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas

> From: "Jon P. Knight" <J.P.Knight@lut.ac.uk>
> 

> But what happens if a posting contains some points I agree with and some
> that I disagree with.  This is the most common form of posting in both
> mailing lists and on the USENET as far as I'm concerned.

That is exactly one reason for WIT to be an improvement.
It forces people to make different points in different
messages.  It would be nice to have a richer system with
semantics within messages but that is not practical yet.
(but with typed links and miem multipart?...)
WIT discourages the "Oh, and by the way" bits.  It is
more of a constraint on writes, to make it more usable for
readers.

Oh, and by the way, I  agree that Seals Of APproaval should
go in -- when Ari is back from Paris maybe.  Maybe without
disapproval, as disapproval without explanation can be
*infuriating*.

Tim