On Sat, Nov 24, 2012, at 09:03 AM, Jim Graham wrote: > On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 09:27:49PM -0500, Peter Davis wrote: > > > > > I don't think there's any question in typography circles or in usability > > circles that proportional fonts are more readable than fixed width > > fonts. > > On this, I agree 100%. But when did we switch from e-mail to typography?
The display of text, whether in email or some other context, whether on an electronic display or in print, *IS* typography. My reference was not a switch but a generalization. > > > Just think about typeset documents versus typewritten ones. To > > Ok, so now the topic IS typesetting. Ok, so clearly you don't understand basic rhetoric. This is what's called an "illustration" or "example." It's a specific case meant to clarify a more general point. > Fine. Yes, typewritten documents > are a thing of the distant past. When is the last time you even SAW a > typewriter? I can't even remember how long it's been.... And while > we've switched to typesetting, never make the mistake of thinking of > your average word processor (e.g., M$ Word, etc.) as typesetting > software. It has some, but not all, of the capabilities of a real > typesetting system (TeX being one example, and IMHO, a very powerful > one). It's seems you are the one determined to switch topics by repeating your plug for TeX. Irrelevant, but I'm already a TeX/LaTeX user, so I'll stipulate that it's an excellent typesetting system ... better than most MUAs. Of course, part of that quality stems from using proportional fonts and, with some TeX engines, using micro-typography, hanging punctuation, and other subtleties that are not approachable with text/plain displays. > > M$ Word does suck...both in terms of usability and output quality (based > on the last time I tried to use it). Thanks for yet another irrelevant editorial comment. > > > > But you still haven't answered the other part: how does the MUA or > > > terminal keep plain test that is meant by the sender to be aligned > > > as he/she typed it? That was a part of the question that needs an > > > answer, as it MUST be handled properly or it's broken. So how IS > > > that done? > > > HTML provides a number of mechanisms for aligning proportional font > > text. > > That's nice, but I didn't ASK about HTML ... so try re-reading the > following, with a bit of emphasis so you won't miss the point this > time around: > > > > > how does the MUA or terminal keep PLAIN TEXT that is meant by the > > > sender to be aligned as he/she typed it? > > By PLAIN TEXT, I mean on BOTH ends, where the receiving end also uses > variable width fonts. HTML was not even part of the question. That's > why I didn't mention it. > If you read my post, you'd see that I was talking about multipart/alternative MIME messages, which can, at least in theory, use both HTML formatting and text/plain formatting to accomodate all recipient MUAs. However, there is a shortage of tools suitable for explicitly editing both alternatives effectively. (I believe Emacs Wanderlust has some features for this, but I haven't looked into it enough.) As for what you "mean," sorry I didn't read your mind. It is certainly possible to use a plain text Web browser (e.g., Lynx, w3m, etc.) to format HTML into plain text, preserving things like tables, etc. And of course HTML provides the <pre>...</pre> element to force text/plain alignment, positioning, etc. Or are you suggesting that some MUAs always display text/plain messages with variable width fonts? I don't know of any MUAs like that, but assuming there are some, my suggestion would be ... don't use them. Excuse me if I've misinterpreted your question again, but it seems to me that all the capabilities for both the sender and the recipient to create and view messages with aligned text are already available. What part are you having trouble with? -pd -- Peter Davis www.techcurmudgeon.com
