On 11/24/12 12:49 PM, Derek Martin wrote:
On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 12:07:06PM -0500, Peter Davis wrote:
On Sat, Nov 24, 2012, at 11:34 AM, Derek Martin wrote:
Except the ideal line length has been proven (to the extent that such
is possible) scientifically to not be a fallacy.
Actually, even a quick Google search on "readability line length" turns
up results that make claims for 50 character lines, and others that
advocate 95 character lines
First, how many of these results involve actual rigorous studies using
the scientific method?
I don't know. Do you?

The convention for e-mail is 72 characters.
No. That was the convention. Currently, I don't believe there is one, "convention" in this case meaning the predominant or prevailing practice.

Yeah, I said exactly that in another message. Now generate HTML mail with Mutt.
Mutt lets you choose your own methods for editing outgoing mail, as well as for displaying messages you're reading and other primary functions. If you're not satisfied with your editor for sending HTML messages, use another. I believe the mode used by Emacs Wanderlust (Draft MIME-edit) is intended to simplify creating multipart messages.

Plus you still get a lot of folks -- many of whom use GUI clents -- who complain about HTML mail for any number of reasons. And at least a few of them are legitimately arguable concerns. A good start: http://www.georgedillon.com/web/html_email_is_evil.shtml I repeat what I said in an earlier message in this thread. HTML is best for handling this. But the matter is not that simple, and for those of us who love Mutt, it's currently not (pratically speaking) an option at all, for outgoing mail.
There are potential privacy issues with HTML, but these can easily be dealt with in most MUAs. Aside from that, George Dillon's other "sins" are basically out-of-date or just wrong. If a recipient refuses to deal with HTML, it's up to the sender to determine how far he/she is willing to go to accommodate that recipient.

-pd

--
--------
Peter Davis
The Tech Curmudgeon
http://www.techcurmudgeon.com

Reply via email to