Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!uunet!munnari.oz.au!manuel!cmf851
From: cmf851@anu.oz.au (Albert Langer)
Newsgroups: comp.society.development
Subject: Re: Low-cost Usenet (Re: usenet in Nepal)
Message-ID: <1991Jun21.220326.24387@newshost.anu.edu.au>
Date: 21 Jun 91 22:03:26 GMT
References: <1991Jun15.023819.5589@newshost.anu.edu.au> <1991Jun18.065605.6955@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> <1991Jun18.211613.22150@agora.rain.com>
Sender: news@newshost.anu.edu.au
Organization: Computer Services Centre, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia.
Lines: 47

In article <1991Jun18.211613.22150@agora.rain.com> trifid@agora.rain.com 
(Roadster Racewerks) writes:

>A really GOOD editor....what I wouldn't give for an online editor similar to
>"QuickEd" by the Dirosh brothers (used on my favorite local systems running
>QuickBBS software)! 
>Cursor in all directions, insert and delete single character
>if need be, quote only one line at a time, as chosen by you with a single
>keystroke. Runs a lot like a good wordprocessor except no spellcheck... All
>single keystroke or slightly shifted single character commands. Comes online
>automatically as soon as you hit "r", and waits to be commanded. Lovely!

Expressed as a "requirement" that would be asking for a message editor
that functions like any normal PC editor instead of some emulation of
a brain-damaged teletype machine. Seems reasonable. But why "online"?
And why no spellcheck?

If we just state the requirement, it may turn out the best way to meet
it is NOT online but offline, with protocols for delivering articles
to the users PC like any other network node (e.g. NNTP and POP3 or
else X.400 Message Store or FidoNet "point" software) and similar protocols 
for submitting articles from the user's PC to the Message Transfer Agent 
(which may well be just another user's PC).

>Quick, easy, uncomplicated, handy...no leaving the reading function to do
>serious editting. (And, thusly, no one quoting entire articles when they only
>wanted 2 sentences....except for a few regular unix users who can't seem to
>break the "quote it all" syndrome... ;-)

Not leaving the reading function for editing could still be implemented
with an ordinary wordprocessor as long as the integration is seamless and
uses a single keystroke.

I think the requirement for less quoting is not really connected with
the quality of the editor. People would quote less if the reader
software had keys for jumping back to the message that is being quoted
from and then returning to the reply message. (As is partly implemented
on many FidoNet readers, where extensive quoting is indeed less common).

Requirement: Ability to jump easily between messages that quote
text from other messages and the original message the quote was taken
from. (Related to cheaper and ease of use requirements as well as
being an enhancement of functionality).

--
Opinions disclaimed (Authoritative answer from opinion server)
Header reply address wrong. Use cmf851@csc2.anu.edu.au