|
Without chaining, a deeply nested response chain looks kind of
silly, and it discourages people from going any deeper.
Since I added the chaining abbreviation, there have been several
instances where longer changes have resulted.
Another issue is that some people don't like the nested
thread idea in the first place, thinking that people
should only be allowed to add to the end of a single list.
I don't happen to agree with such thinking, preferring to
deal with the inherent hierarchical nature of on-line,
asynchronous collaboration.
So chaining is somewhat of a compromise to allow this kind of
linear appearance while keeping the nested structure in any case.
We could even provide an option that prevented people from
adding more than one response to any response (or always
adding such a response to the end of the chain).
No one has expressed confusion before about chaining,
though I wouldnt
be surprised to hear of it. It's an experiment, and I
think it is going rather well, actually. Perhaps if the
response numbers were not present (which is an option)
there would be more confusion. Let me know if you have
any more thoughts on this.
dan
| 
Chaining is supposed to be a convenience 
"Chained" responses
(Martin Huntley)
