Come for the quick hacks, stay for the epiphanies. | |
PerlMonks |
RE: Section Order on Newest Nodes (this monk agrees)by ybiC (Prior) |
on Aug 31, 2000 at 08:46 UTC ( [id://30473]=note: print w/replies, xml ) | Need Help?? |
I'm glad to see you bring this up, athomason, as the same thought ocurred to me recently. FWIW, I'd like to see the layout be as you describe.
And I also agree with Turnstep's kvetch above about "anti-thread" reply names. I respect that some of our fellow Monks have reasons for completely changing the node name of their replies, but it *does* make it tougher to follow context. Kudra started a very logical reply naming scheme a couple months ago, that I think could be encouraged as "suggested standard" of sorts. It goes something like this: RE(3)Original Node Name Here(Brief Reply Title Here). A variation includes the replying Monk name with the RE (n), but I fail to see what value that adds, since the replying Monk's name is always associated somewhere close anyway.
My opinions, worth exactly what you paid for them.
Update: thanks to chromatic, who pointed me to The Threading Dilemma which already discusses in depth these points and much more.
In Section
Perl Monks Discussion
|
|