TOFU

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

TOFU describes a citation style for written communication in electronic media. The acronym stands for Text Above, Fullquote Below , or Text Over, Fullquote Under : The email begins with the answer (top posting) , followed by a full copy of the quoted email including header and signature .

In contrast, the Netiquette recommends a condensed citation style: From previous contributions to the discussion, only individual questions or statements are cited and marked with special indentation marks - usually a preceding ">". Every quoted question and statement is followed by the associated answer, comment or question. This style (inline quoting ) makes it easier to read large quantities of consecutive messages quickly, but has the problem that deliberate or accidental omission of information can result in a falsified overall impression for the recipient.

When choosing the citation style, the context , the intended use of a message, is important. In Usenet , netiquette with inline quoting should almost always be used. This style was also widely used in web forums. TOFU is common in business e-mail correspondence because it enables the recipient to retrace the entire previous process unchanged using a single e-mail. The former applications are more of a conversational nature, while the latter is more like exchanging a file with unchanged business documents.

example

TOFU Inline quoting Indirect speech 
Lieber Oskar,
 
das stimmt doch gar
nicht. Richtig ist 4.
 
Gruß
Max
 
--Ursprüngliche Nachricht--
Von: Oskar
[mailto:oskar@example.net]
Gesendet: Sonntag, 24. 
Dezember 2006 12:00
An: Max
Betreff: (kein Betreff)
 
Lieber Max,
 
eines wollte ich Dir schon
immer einmal sagen - das
habe ich mich bisher bloß
nicht getraut. Es lässt
mir aber einfach keine
Ruhe, deshalb muss es nun
heraus:
2 + 2 = 5,
wie jedermann weiß.
 
Beste Grüße
Oskar
 
-- 


Lieber Oskar,
 
Oskar schrieb:
> 2 + 2 = 5
 
das stimmt doch gar
nicht. Richtig ist 4.
 
Gruß
Max

Lieber Oskar,
 
du behauptest, 2 und 2
sei 5.
 
Das stimmt doch gar
nicht. Richtig ist 4.
 
Gruß
Max

designation

The exact origin of the name TOFU is controversial. Postings by Gerhard 'H' Wrodnigg in the newsgroups at.usenet and at.otherstiges from March 2000 are verifiable as the earliest use in Usenet .

Criticism of TOFU

TOFU is mostly criticized when users of this citation style meet traditional representatives of inline quoting (for example on Usenet or in mailing lists). In more traditional applications of the Internet, inline quoting has become established over the years. It is described in detail in countless FAQs on netiquette. Ignorance or disregard of these simple rules by newcomers encounters resistance, for example, from experienced Usenet or web forum users. Conversely, the criticism of TOFU meets with incomprehension where TOFU is the usual form of uncomplicated mail exchange between private individuals or companies.

In terms of content, the criticism revolves around two questions, the order and scope of the quotation. In the case of TOFU, the coherent answer comes first (text above), then the reader must , if the reference of the answer is not clear, read the full quoted original mail to find out what exactly the answer is. On the other hand, if the quotation is too abbreviated, a reader may lack information for (full) understanding. Therefore, critics reject the need to read, but proponents appreciate the ability to read. With inline quoting, quotation and answer are interwoven. Here you can immediately see which statements the new arguments refer to. Longer inline citations may require the user to scroll down. With TOFU you only have to scroll down if the context is unclear.

The length of the quotation is more difficult. TOFU quotes the complete mail and inserts an indentation mark before each line or an introductory block before each reply. As a result, longer discussions in which e-mails quote e-mails that quote e-mails which in turn cite e-mails in which further e-mails are quoted, a confusing tail of quotations grows. The individual lines of text also become longer with each citation process. The automatic line break of some mail programs then causes " comb quoting " that is difficult to read .

The fact that long quotes are difficult to read is also due to the fact that they largely consist of header data and signatures . Problems with the scope of the quotation can be avoided simply by deliberately deleting parts of the quotation that are superfluous in terms of content - that is, by doing without the unprocessed complete quotation ( full quotation ).

Likewise, with TOFU, comprehension is made more difficult by the fact that when reading in chronological order, after the end of each quoted email, you have to jump to the beginning of the previous one. If, on the other hand, a response would be given at the end of the quotation (TUFO, so to speak), it would be possible to read without such an interruption, but it would have to jump back to the beginning of the response when opening an email. Both are both subjectively different and annoying. In both cases, however, the course of the dialogue that is carried along has its value as a record.

TOFU is widely used in e-mail

The widespread use of TOFU in e-mail is due to the rapid increase in Internet users since the mid- 1990s . A large number of the many new Internet users only partially adopted the standards that were previously considered to be generally valid. The e-mail programs predominant at the time ( Lotus Notes , Microsoft Outlook ) sometimes did not support inline quoting at all. Even today, TOFU is unintentionally promoted by the usual e-mail programs: Either because they are set this way by default and the new users do not know the netiquette, or because they place the cursor at the beginning when replying to an e-mail. Many users write everything before the full quote.

In contrast, TOFU is a widespread form of response in business e-mail. Quoting and commenting on individual sentences in isolation would be perceived as unusual here.

The situation is exacerbated by the consistent application of the Commercial Code , since in the business area, shareholders, tax authorities and other information must be added to every e-mail. Common configurations sometimes put such disclaimers at the very end, but increasingly also before the suspected quote - which may seem very strange with conventional methods if this disclaimer appears before or in the middle of the quote and in front of your own text.

Alternatives to TOFU

  • Quote in the text instead of below the text (no "U"). Inline quoting is standard on Usenet and in discussion forums, where threads can be easily traced. The quotation should be reduced to the part necessary for understanding.
  • Tidy up the quote instead of a full quote (no "F"). Delete signatures, header data and other technical details. Repair comb quotings.
  • Use linguistic stylistic devices such as direct and indirect speech .
  • Use of thread representation: Every correct mail contains relational links to what it relates. These headers are often invisible to the user, but are standardized as the Header References or In-Reply-To . Powerful mail programs allow a tree display in so-called threads (discussion threads ). All previous e-mails are available to everyone between two discussion participants, on e-mail distribution lists or mailing lists. The reference to the previous message is automatically guaranteed by the thread display. Full quotations can therefore be completely omitted because every reader also has direct access to the previous mail.
  • Include quoted emails as a file attachment. The text remains clear, the recipient has access to the entire process.
  • Mixing TOFU and inline quoting sensibly: Excerpts of quotations, to which the following answers refer, in the text; the full quote (with date and author) at the end. In this way, the context of the quotations above remains comprehensible, while the necessary quotation length in the text is minimized.
  • The following may apply within closed user groups: Do not shorten the original mail, but insert the answers - separated by name abbreviations and, where technically possible, by a different color / font - in the places referred to in the answered mail. When communicating with unknown third parties, text formatting by means of color or font should generally be avoided, as this is sometimes not displayed at all, sometimes incompletely and often becomes completely useless, especially with other citation styles.

See also

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Google Groups search

Web links