I received a grumpy e-mail message from a cyber-hip correspondent today in which he suggested that I had violated "netiquette" by placing my response to a previous message below (rather than preceding) the copy of that message produced when one hits the "reply to author" button on one's e-mail manager.

Netiquette? Say it isn't so -- the word, not the practice.

Sorry Father - but I've seen it before so often as to now consider it unremarkable. So yes, I suspect that descriptive (rather than the authoritatively prescriptive) lexicons should contain it.

I've seen netiquitte in regular use since 1994, which was my first contact with the net. Actually, I think I saw it more frequently back then, when most people didn't know the "rules" of the cyber lifestyle. It was so common back then that I simply assumed that it was simply part of (and as old as) the net. It recently occured to me that the word has declined in usage. I assume the reason is because there are so many people online now that it would be difficult to impose politeness rules on the masses.

netiquette in regular use since 1994

That sounds right to me too, xara.

Here's an "invented" word that I don't mind, as it's useful and fairly clear. I'd take the meaning as something like
guidelines for politeness and understandability when communicating using the Internet or World Wide Web

I suppose etiquette implies something more formal than netiquette could ever be - but on the other hand, it's not as if the rules of etiquette were followed rigidly in every household in the world even when they were considered of the greatest importance.

[quick rant]
I'd consider it good netiquette for communications to allow for viewing on any browser and on any platform. This is the way the Web was designed, so shouldn't be a problem. But there are a lot of ill-mannered Websites out there!
[/quick rant]

>to allow for viewing on any browser and on any platform
[ranting response]
shona, this is because there was/is no standard for the way that HTML is *interpreted*. this is supremely stupid, but there IS a putative standard for writing HTML, but as a web publisher I have absolutely no guarantee as to how different browsers will "read" my pages. this is a swell thing for the writers of "web pages for dummies" and the like...
[/ranting response off]

my calmer self will now step to the fore and tell you that most "amateur" publishers will, in an attempt to maintain their readers (and sanity), limit themselves to verifying their own pages with the major browsers (e.g., IE, Netscape, perhaps AOL (ha!)).

Is our prohibition of ridiculing the typographic errors of our correspondents a species of local netiquette?

Sanctions against carping about typos and spelling seem to be internet-wide; but I think that it's those who can't spell or type that shout the loudest. I think we may be overly polite by desisting here in this local wordy environment -- if we can't seek a higher standard here, what recourse do we have??

[speaking of shouting, just try typing a message in all-caps and see how long you can get away with THAT...]

>>ill-mannered Websites out there!<<

I can only speak for myself here, but I should point out that in a non commercial setting, it's impossible for one to check all platforms. In our house we use unix as our operating system, (sometimes mac, but not regularly) and any product with microsoft printed anywhere on it is strictly forbidden to enter. This in mind, it is quite difficult for me to fully check my own sites on many browsers.

Another point could to be made is that it could be quite expensive and time consuming to assemble all the possible combinations of hardware and software. I have simply learned that quite often mainstream software does not work for my system. I give more merrit to those sites that take the time and effort to consider my platform.

Xara says: "I give more merit to those sites that take the time and effort to consider my platform."

My platform is lower taxes, a shorter work-week, and free beer on the Queen's Birthday.

My platform is lower taxes, a shorter work-week, and free beer on the Queen's Birthday.

But Father, surely you do not advocate avarice, sloth and gluttony.

1. Lower taxes, below the point where the government has money to squander on such things as the Millennium Dome, but not to the point where necessary services suffer.

2. Shorten the work-week to afford the citizens time to devote themselves to good works, civic and charitable endeavours, prayer, reading and other forms of self-improvment.

3. And just enough free beer to toast Her Majesty, but not enough to violate the laws against driving while intoxicated nor being drunk and disorderly in public.

>think we may be overly polite by desisting here in this local wordy environment

Here is a completely non-spellchecked , late night, post C2H5OH posting. It has suprisingly few errors actuallly. That's why I'm not too kn on over enthusiastic mornng redrs corrcting mistakes!!! Night night!

But I must obkect, Jo. You got C2H5OH wrong. It should have been, as is customary for me:

(C2H5OH)x3 at least.

any product with microsoft printed anywhere on it is strictly forbidden to enter.

Applause.

I am also fighting a single-handed battle against the Murdoch empire: no 'The Sun', no 'The Times', and no 'Sky TV'. So there - yah boo sucks to you Rupert and Billy.

>My platform is lower taxes, a shorter work-week, and free beer on the Queen's Birthday.

And may she become a born-again Christian, then we'll get free beer twice a year instead of once!

BTW, I need to explain my absence. We ahve a department store here called Kohl's. I went into the liquor store nearby and purchased some English ale, then wandered into the department store. To my dismay, the local constabulary stopped me and hauled me in for carrying Newcastle to Kohl's.

TEd. Don't laugh, but I have no clue what you are saying. I understand all the words but that's where it stops. Did you get arrested for bringing alcohol into a dept. store??

[aside to bel]

that was one of teD's nefandous puns. it's a play on "bringing coals to Newcastle", an activity that would be a study in superfluity, Newcastle being a city known for its coal production I guess....

there was/is no standard for the way that HTML is *interpreted

I take your point, tsuwm (and yours xara).
It is bloody tough just allowing for Netscape and IE (although I'd have to say that IE actually makes better use of HTML standards than Netscape - roll on Netscape 6, perhaps).

[preach]
Still, with the assistance of people like http://www.htmlhelp.com, http://www.anybrowser.org/campaign/ and, of course, with the odd reference to http://www.w3.org, it's certainly within the capacities of even individuals to take on most comers adequately. Maybe the resulting site won't be as flashy as you'd like, but that may well be a price worth paying.

If you don't have identical platforms (PC/Mac/Unix), then you can always find someone who has that kit and ask them to check out your site. But platform differences tend to be less significant than browser differences in my (admittedly limited) experience.
[/preach]

Fishy says:
>> platform differences tend to be less significant than browser differences<<

That is true, to some extent, but Netscape for unix, for example, is not the same program as Netscape for PC. Then you get into the nasty issues of things such as unix on a Mac (which my husband uses), and unix on a PC (which I use). We ran into a nasty website just the other day that worked for him but not for me.

>>resulting site won't be as flashy as you'd like,<<

Hoorah to that. There's nothing I dislike more than all those horrible FLASHY sites that are blinking and sparkling so much that you can't find any useful information after you wait the 15 minutes for the darned thing to download.