Re: Incorrect "reply" highlighting in MicroEd
Hello Andrew, On Sun, 21 Jun 2020 18:24:58 +0930 GMT (21-Jun-20, 15:54 +0700 GMT), Andrew Savchenko wrote: > Hello Thomas, > Sunday, June 21, 2020, 12:43:06 PM, you wrote: >> Mine is set to 10 characters (so your example above is not >> highlighted), but you set it to any value that makes sense to you. > Works. Shouldn't there be a more robust detection of the reply symbol? > Currently TheBat seems to use: (.*>.*|^>.*) > How about this instead: (^>\s.*|\w>.*) > Latter would prevent detection of ">" somewhere mid-line. I don't think so. Sometimes we want first and last name (i.e. including a blank) before the quote indicator. Otherwise you can just set the limit to zero and it won't be detected mid-line. -- Cheers, Thomas. Message reply created with The Bat! Version 9.2.0.4 (BETA) (64-bit) under Windows 10.0 Build 18362 Current version is 9.1.18 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Incorrect "reply" highlighting in MicroEd
Hello Thomas, Sunday, June 21, 2020, 12:43:06 PM, you wrote: > Mine is set to 10 characters (so your example above is not > highlighted), but you set it to any value that makes sense to you. Works. Shouldn't there be a more robust detection of the reply symbol? Currently TheBat seems to use: (.*>.*|^>.*) How about this instead: (^>\s.*|\w>.*) Latter would prevent detection of ">" somewhere mid-line. CC'ing Stefan. -- Regards, A Current version is 9.1.18 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Incorrect "reply" highlighting in MicroEd
On 21 June 2020 at 04:00 Andrew Savchenko wrote and made these points AS> This string of text is incorrectly highlighted as reply: AS> ``` AS> X.X. Some text ">" that must not be highlighted as the reply... AS> ``` Ah - that old chestnut. This one has been reported before but is actually covered in Options. See the "Quote name limit" option in the Preferences.. View / editor.. Editor. This value states how many characters are used to denote a quote prefix. Reduce this value to reduce the effect. It is set to 20 on my system. -- Cheers -- Marck D Pearlstone -- List moderator and fellow end user TB! v9.2.0.4 (BETA) on Windows 10.0.18363 pgpj0KLIPFNSv.pgp Description: PGP signature Current version is 9.1.18 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Incorrect "reply" highlighting in MicroEd
Hello Andrew, On Sun, 21 Jun 2020 12:30:46 +0930 GMT (21-Jun-20, 10:00 +0700 GMT), Andrew Savchenko wrote: > This string of text is incorrectly highlighted as reply: > ``` > X.X. Some text ">" that must not be highlighted as the reply... > ``` > Before I create bug report, could someone please confirm? > Screenshot attached. Go to: Options / Preferences / Viewer/Editor Editor Preferences / General / Quote Name Limit. Mine is set to 10 characters (so your example above is not highlighted), but you set it to any value that makes sense to you. -- Cheers, Thomas. Message reply created with The Bat! Version 9.2.0.4 (BETA) (64-bit) under Windows 10.0 Build 18362 Current version is 9.1.18 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Incorrect "reply" highlighting in MicroEd
Hello, This string of text is incorrectly highlighted as reply: ``` X.X. Some text ">" that must not be highlighted as the reply... ``` Before I create bug report, could someone please confirm? Screenshot attached. -- v9.1.18 x64 on Windows 10 18363 Current version is 9.1.18 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Why won't the developers add an option for allowing a single carriage return for MicroEd? (with auto-format enabled)
On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 21:54:34 +0700, Thomas Fernandez thomas.gm...@gmx.net wrote: Hello Bill, On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 23:25:01 -0700 GMT (28/Aug/09, 13:25 PM +0700 GMT), Bill McQuillan wrote: I didn't even know that, but it will make Bill happy. :-) BM It might if v2.11 had such an option! :-) Ah, forgot about your version number. Sorry. BM Regardless, there are many other reasons I prefer the Windows editor. And BM for the issue of not wrapping the final output when I send, when I am BM finished editing and proofing a message, I quickly switch to the MicroEd, BM apply Alt-L as necessary, switch back to Windows and send it! Works for me. BM BM In fact I did just that with this message! Wow, that's a new way of taking the best of both editors! Have your cake and eat it too? No offense, but that is ridiculous. I'd prefer the developers to fix any inconsistencies/problems with the editors so such things don't need to take place. But I seem to be alone on that. Current version is 4.2.10.0 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Why won't the developers add an option for allowing a single carriage return for MicroEd? (with auto-format enabled)
On Thu, 2009-08-27, Thomas Fernandez wrote: Hello MFPA, On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 20:09:37 +0100 GMT (28/Aug/09, 2:09 AM +0700 GMT), MFPA wrote: If you prefer to the Windows standard then (no, I'm not going to say use the Windows editor g) you can hit the End key. It will place the cursor behind the last character as you desire. M Or you could remove the tick from Free caret positioning at M Options | Preferences | Viewer/Editor | Editor preferences | M MicroEd-specific options. (-; I didn't even know that, but it will make Bill happy. :-) It might if v2.11 had such an option! :-) Regardless, there are many other reasons I prefer the Windows editor. And for the issue of not wrapping the final output when I send, when I am finished editing and proofing a message, I quickly switch to the MicroEd, apply Alt-L as necessary, switch back to Windows and send it! Works for me. In fact I did just that with this message! -- Bill McQuillan bill.mcquil...@pobox.com Using The Bat! 2.11 on Windows XP 5.1 build 2600-Service Pack 2 Current version is 4.2.10.0 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Why won't the developers add an option for allowing a single carriage return for MicroEd? (with auto-format enabled)
Hello Bill, On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 23:25:01 -0700 GMT (28/Aug/09, 13:25 PM +0700 GMT), Bill McQuillan wrote: I didn't even know that, but it will make Bill happy. :-) BM It might if v2.11 had such an option! :-) Ah, forgot about your version number. Sorry. BM Regardless, there are many other reasons I prefer the Windows editor. And BM for the issue of not wrapping the final output when I send, when I am BM finished editing and proofing a message, I quickly switch to the MicroEd, BM apply Alt-L as necessary, switch back to Windows and send it! Works for me. BM BM In fact I did just that with this message! Wow, that's a new way of taking the best of both editors! Have your cake and eat it too? -- Cheers, Thomas. http://thomas.fernandez.hat-gar-keine-homepage.de/ Message reply created with The Bat! 4.2.10.6 under Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 3 Current version is 4.2.10.0 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Why won't the developers add an option for allowing a single carriage return for MicroEd? (with auto-format enabled)
Hi On Friday 28 August 2009 at 7:25:01 AM, in mid:469231774.20090827232...@pobox.com, Bill McQuillan wrote: Regardless, there are many other reasons I prefer the Windows editor. And for the issue of not wrapping the final output when I send, when I am finished editing and proofing a message, I quickly switch to the MicroEd, apply Alt-L as necessary, switch back to Windows and send it! Works for me. What is the advantage of switching back to the Windows editor to send it? -- Best regards MFPA There is no job so simple that it cannot be done wrong Using The Bat! v4.0.38 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Current version is 4.2.10.0 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Why won't the developers add an option for allowing a single carriage return for MicroEd? (with auto-format enabled)
Hi On Thursday 27 August 2009 at 8:53:46 PM, in mid:369449679.20090827215...@nosuchdomain.com, Peter Meyns wrote: This is a good one for April fools! :D Not sure I understand how it would be good for April Fools, since that setting really exists and has that functionality. -- Best regards MFPA He's an environmentalist - his arguments are 100% recycled Using The Bat! v4.0.38 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Current version is 4.2.10.0 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Why won't the developers add an option for allowing a single carriage return for MicroEd? (with auto-format enabled)
On Fri, 2009-08-28, MFPA wrote: Hi On Friday 28 August 2009 at 7:25:01 AM, in mid:469231774.20090827232...@pobox.com, Bill McQuillan wrote: Regardless, there are many other reasons I prefer the Windows editor. And for the issue of not wrapping the final output when I send, when I am finished editing and proofing a message, I quickly switch to the MicroEd, apply Alt-L as necessary, switch back to Windows and send it! Works for me. What is the advantage of switching back to the Windows editor to send it? None, really. However, it appeases my OCD and lets me see that the portions of the message, like quotes, that I did not reformat are still the way I wanted them. Oh, and I don't actually always do it! :-) -- Bill McQuillan bill.mcquil...@pobox.com Using The Bat! 2.11 on Windows XP 5.1 build 2600-Service Pack 2 Current version is 4.2.10.0 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Why won't the developers add an option for allowing a single carriage return for MicroEd? (with auto-format enabled)
On Wed, 2009-08-26, AC wrote: For the Windows editor that you mentioned above, try this and tell me if it works: --start a new email message (make sure it's in the Windows editor mode) --copy a paragraph of text from somewhere else (internet, etc.) --Go back to the email, and right-click and paste as quotation You will see that the even thought the text gets pasted with the symbol, the color doesn't automatically change to the quote color setting. Now if you do the same in Microed, the color changes immediately (very nice). If it were not for that and other other similar coloring issues, I'd probably just use teh Windows editor. test I tried that with a multi-line quote, both with a right click and the paste as quotation menu selection. Both ways pasted in with leading and colored as a quote. Oddly, when I then deleted the leading of one line the color stayed the same even when I added and deleted several levels (e.g., ). I have also noticed that when I edit a quote (trim it down) sometimes if I start entering test right after the quote, my new text is in the quote color even though it has no leading . For example I just put the cursor after the period after the word editor at the end of the quote above and typed enterentertest and as I look at it now the word test is the color of quoted text! I guess that I don't find the misleading colors as annoying as I do that in MicroEd I cannot click somewhere out to the right of a line and have the cursor appear just after the last character on that line. Also note that I am using a fairly ancient version the Windows editor (2.11) so that may be a factor too. Oh well, no accounting for taste. Best of luck, -- Bill McQuillan bill.mcquil...@pobox.com Using The Bat! 2.11 on Windows XP 5.1 build 2600-Service Pack 2 Current version is 4.2.9.1 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Why won't the developers add an option for allowing a single carriage return for MicroEd? (with auto-format enabled)
Hello Bill, On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 23:18:09 -0700 GMT (27/Aug/09, 13:18 PM +0700 GMT), Bill McQuillan wrote: BM I guess that I don't find the misleading colors as annoying as I do that in BM MicroEd I cannot click somewhere out to the right of a line and have the BM cursor appear just after the last character on that line. That's actually a feature, it's called free caret and allows you to put the cursor anywhere on the screen and start typing there. Some people like it. If you prefer to the Windows standard then (no, I'm not going to say use the Windows editor g) you can hit the End key. It will place the cursor behind the last character as you desire. BM Also note that I am using a fairly ancient version the Windows editor BM (2.11) so that may be a factor too. MicroEd hasn't changed since v1.x, except for UTF support added at some time. BM Oh well, no accounting for taste. That's indeed the beauty of TB!: I don't know of any other email client that gives you the choice. (I do think I had a choice of editors under unix, but that was sometime in the last century.) -- Cheers, Thomas. http://thomas.fernandez.hat-gar-keine-homepage.de/ Message reply created with The Bat! 4.2.10.6 under Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 3 Current version is 4.2.10.0 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Why won't the developers add an option for allowing a single carriage return for MicroEd? (with auto-format enabled)
Hi On Thursday 27 August 2009 at 5:52:00 PM, in mid:12910141720.20090827235...@thomas-bkk.my-fqdn.de, Thomas Fernandez wrote: If you prefer to the Windows standard then (no, I'm not going to say use the Windows editor g) you can hit the End key. It will place the cursor behind the last character as you desire. Or you could remove the tick from Free caret positioning at Options | Preferences | Viewer/Editor | Editor preferences | MicroEd-specific options. (-; -- Best regards MFPA Zorba the Greek - before he zorbas you Using The Bat! v4.0.38 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Current version is 4.2.10.0 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Why won't the developers add an option for allowing a single carriage return for MicroEd? (with auto-format enabled)
Hi MFPA, on Thu, 27 Aug 2009 20:09:37 +0100GMT (27.08.2009, 21:09 +0200GMT here), you wrote: M Or you could remove the tick from Free caret positioning at M Options | Preferences | Viewer/Editor | Editor preferences | M MicroEd-specific options. (-; This is a good one for April fools! :D -- Cheers Peter Never trust a stock broker who is married to a travel agent. Current version is 4.2.10.0 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Why won't the developers add an option for allowing a single carriage return for MicroEd? (with auto-format enabled)
Hello MFPA, On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 20:09:37 +0100 GMT (28/Aug/09, 2:09 AM +0700 GMT), MFPA wrote: If you prefer to the Windows standard then (no, I'm not going to say use the Windows editor g) you can hit the End key. It will place the cursor behind the last character as you desire. M Or you could remove the tick from Free caret positioning at M Options | Preferences | Viewer/Editor | Editor preferences | M MicroEd-specific options. (-; I didn't even know that, but it will make Bill happy. :-) -- Cheers, Thomas. http://thomas.fernandez.hat-gar-keine-homepage.de/ Message reply created with The Bat! 4.2.10.6 under Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 3 Current version is 4.2.10.0 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Why won't the developers add an option for allowing a single carriage return for MicroEd? (with auto-format enabled)
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 01:29:11 -0700, Bill McQuillan bill.mcquil...@pobox.com wrote: BTW, my Windows editor seems to color quoted text appropriately. Thank you for your explanation. It was very helpful and I appreciate it. I'm a little more calm about it. i guess I just ahve to decide which editor I want to use. For the Windows editor that you mentioned above, try this and tell me if it works: --start a new email message (make sure it's in the Windows editor mode) --copy a paragraph of text from somewhere else (internet, etc.) --Go back to the email, and right-click and paste as quotation You will see that the even thought the text gets pasted with the symbol, the color doesn't automatically change to the quote color setting. Now if you do the same in Microed, the color changes immediately (very nice). If it were not for that and other other similar coloring issues, I'd probably just use teh Windows editor. But you're explanation helps me appreciate the Microed more. Maybe I'll just use double-enter to separate my paragraphs, and that will be my compromise. Current version is 4.2.9.1 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Why won't the developers add an option for allowing a single carriage return for MicroEd? (with auto-format enabled)
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 10:49:07 +0100, Marck D Pearlstone ma...@silverstones.com wrote: Dear Ac, @24-Aug-2009, 21:11 -0700 (25-Aug 05:11 here) AC [A] in mid:t5o695t0hjcsj5ikdtgls8h3hbcv4h1...@4ax.com said: ... snip A All I want to do is to have automatic wrapping and to be able to press A the Enter key ONCE and start a new line. I just don't understand why A the developers and users are opposed to this. There is a very simple explanation. In microed, you are editing plain text ready to send. That's what it does and what it was always designed to do. There is no character in the ASCII set used for microed that can be used as an 'un-wrappable end of line'. A CR/LF is at the end of every visible line. Only 2 in a row can denote an unwrappable line. In autoformat, it is 2 CR/LFs that show when to stop recalculating the position of the embedded CR/LFs within a paragraph. So AC, the opposition you encounter to this idea is not a pedantic or resistive one, but entirely a technical one. Thank you for the response, it is informative and helpful. Current version is 4.2.9.1 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Why won't the developers add an option for allowing a single carriage return for MicroEd? (with auto-format enabled)
Dear Ac, @24-Aug-2009, 21:11 -0700 (25-Aug 05:11 here) AC [A] in mid:t5o695t0hjcsj5ikdtgls8h3hbcv4h1...@4ax.com said: ... snip A All I want to do is to have automatic wrapping and to be able to press A the Enter key ONCE and start a new line. I just don't understand why A the developers and users are opposed to this. There is a very simple explanation. In microed, you are editing plain text ready to send. That's what it does and what it was always designed to do. There is no character in the ASCII set used for microed that can be used as an 'un-wrappable end of line'. A CR/LF is at the end of every visible line. Only 2 in a row can denote an unwrappable line. In autoformat, it is 2 CR/LFs that show when to stop recalculating the position of the embedded CR/LFs within a paragraph. So AC, the opposition you encounter to this idea is not a pedantic or resistive one, but entirely a technical one. -- Cheers -- //.arck D Pearlstone -- List moderator and fellow end user TB! v4.2.10.6 on Windows Vista 6.0.6001 Service Pack 1 ' pgpgy4i5jcKfd.pgp Description: PGP signature Current version is 4.2.9.1 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Why won't the developers add an option for allowing a single carriage return for MicroEd? (with auto-format enabled)
On Mon, 2009-08-24, AC wrote: All I want to do is to have automatic wrapping and to be able to press the Enter key ONCE and start a new line. I just don't understand why the developers and users are opposed to this. I think that you need to understand the architecture of the MicroEd to see that this is asking for two conflicting things that would make major changes to the basic concepts of MicroEd. First, the concept of a paragraph in MicroEd is a block of text separated from the preceeding and following text by at least one blank line. Second, Alt-L says reformat the paragraph containing the cursor. To do this, MicroEd finds the preceeding and following blank lines to determine the paragraph. It then reformats that paragraph (left justified). Third, setting automatic wrapping essentially means do an Alt-L after each keystroke. Notice that a single Enter keystroke does not create a blank line and the implied Alt-L effectively sucks the contents of the supposed new line of text into the text above, since MicroEd doesn't find a blank line to end the current paragraph. I personally suspect that this exact problem may be what caused the developers to throw up their hands at some point in the past and decide that just doing a Windows style editor was the way to solve the problem for people that wanted what you're asking for. (I could be wrong!) BTW, my Windows editor seems to color quoted text appropriately. -- Bill McQuillan bill.mcquil...@pobox.com Using The Bat! 2.11 on Windows XP 5.1 build 2600-Service Pack 2 Current version is 4.2.9.1 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Why won't the developers add an option for allowing a single carriage return for MicroEd? (with auto-format enabled)
In a thread from a few days back, I was frustrated with wrapping in the Bat and had a few questions. The answers i recieved helped me identify exactly what feature I would like to see added to the Bat and MicroEd in particular. Can we have a checkbox that will allow single-carriage returns with auto-format enabled? Why do I want this? So that wrapping will work in MicroEd the way most Windows users are used to. I will go through the details and the common responses that I expect from this group. Reaction #1 Why don't you just use the Windows editor? Well, I like the MicroEd because of the way it autmoatically colors things according to your color preferences. For example, consider quoted text: In Microed, if I use the right-click option to paste as quotation, then the pasted text will automatically be colored with whatever the color setting for quotes is. Also, if I remove the symbol from the beginning of a line, the text instantly goes back to the normal color. This is not the case with the Windows editor. When you paste as quotation in the Windows editor, it does not become automatically colored. Also, if you remove the symbol, the color doesn't change. So that's why I prefer Microed. But the single line return auto-format issue prevents me from liking it completely. It would be nice if the Windows coloring things were automatic. Or if single carriage returns were allowed in Microed with auto-format turned on. I still don't think it would be that big of a deal to add an option for allow single carriage return. Reaction #2 Just press 'Alt-L' with auto-format turned off to fix wrapping issues. I understand that I can use the Alt-L shortcut. But i shouldn't have to. Again, all I'm asking for is a simple option--a checkbox. Why should I have to press Alt-L every time I edit a paragraph, which will happen multiple times a day. Reaction #3 That's just the way MicroEd has always been and we're not going to change it. This is actually the response I get from the developers. I have never recieved a response like this for feature requests for any software, and i find it strange. It's puzzling because I am not asking for any features or characterisitics to be removed from Microed, just ADD a little feature. So all users who prefer it like it currently is will not be affected. I ask again and again, what is the big deal? Why would any of you oppose such an addition? It makes no sens for other users to say they don't want the feature added because IT DOESNT CHANGE ANYTHING. All I want to do is to have automatic wrapping and to be able to press the Enter key ONCE and start a new line. I just don't understand why the developers and users are opposed to this. Current version is 4.2.9.1 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Please help me understand the Pros and Cons of MicroEd (many, many wrapping issues)
On Saturday, August 22, 2009, 12:32:20 PM, Bill McQuillan wrote: Now I have figured the reason is that RitLabs considers that the Windows Editor is to be normally used with proportional fonts and that the number of characters is not an appropriate measurement (although they seem to handle it fine during editing). If there was an option to specify the final width by inches, cm, picas, points,... and if I choose a fixed pitch font so I could get that 75 character line, I would be very pleased. When one posts plain text messages, one doesn't specify a font at all. It's all up to the recipient with what font they are rendering the mesage. -- Dwight A. Corrin 316.303.9385 phone ahead to fax dcorrin at fastmail.fm photo galleries at http://dcorrin.smugmug.com photo blog at http://dcorrin.aminus3.com http://photos.vfxy.com/photoblogs/5882 Using IMAP with The Bat! 4.2.10.5 on Windows Vista version 6,0 (Service Pack 2) Current version is 4.2.9.1 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Please help me understand the Pros and Cons of MicroEd (many, many wrapping issues)
On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 10:46:58 +0200, Roelof Otten ro...@otten.tv wrote: A Question #2: A What does Auto-Format do? Please be detailed, I don't get it. I don't know everything. ;-) It doesn't like new lines, when hit enter and continue typing it continues on the same line. To really start a new line you've got to start a new paragraph: hit enter twice so you've got an empty line in between. When you start typing in the middle of some text it keeps on wrapping everything correctly instead of what you experience with question 5. Thanks for the response (thanks to everyone else also). Now you've hit on the issue that I really want to resolve. Why can't the developers add an extra option (checkbox) so that you don't have to press enter twice to start a new line? Why can't I start a new line by pressing it once? All it would be is a simple little option, and it takes nothing away from the other features, it just adds to it. When I asked for this as a support ticket, the answer I got was this: Hello, I am sorry to say, but this is not a bug, it's a feature of MicroEd. Auto-Format works that way for years and we do not intend to change that... I don't quite understand why they would refuse to add an option for this. Like I said, it doesn't take anything away. It just adds a little feature to get rid of the nuisance of pressing enter twice. Often times in an email, I have to make lists lik this: item1 item2 item3 But I can't do it without either turning auto-format off or pressing enter twice and then going back and deleting the extra lines. I mean, is it really a big deal to add that option? i don't want to turn off auto-format, because I want the wrapping to automatically adjust when I go back to edit a paragraph. It just doesn't seem reasonable to me to take such a stubborn stance with something so simple and helpful. It's not like I'm asking for a lot and i think it's a pretty practical issue. I don't feel it deserves a That's just the way it is and we're not going to change it attitude. My follow up response was this: But couldn't there be an additional option added where we can have all the features of auto-format and reflowing, but also be able to press enter without it skipping back to the previous line? It wouldn't take anything away from anything else, it would only add a feature. please consider it. All it would have to be is another checkbox like, Allow single carriage return. Would anyone here support me in adding this feature? I need some backup. Again, remember, nothing would change, it will just be an additional option. Current version is 4.2.9.1 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Please help me understand the Pros and Cons of MicroEd (many, many wrapping issues)
Hallo AC, On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 00:23:04 -0700GMT (22-8-2009, 9:23 +0200, where I live), you wrote: A Thanks for the response (thanks to everyone else also). Now you've A hit on the issue that I really want to resolve. Why can't the A developers add an extra option (checkbox) so that you don't have to A press enter twice to start a new line? Why can't I start a new line A by pressing it once? All it would be is a simple little option, and A it takes nothing away from the other features, it just adds to it. Basically, because we're using plain text in the message, no fancy coding like Word or other text editors. And in plain text it isn't possible to differentiate to a line break that's inserted manually or one that's inserted automatically. That's why one line break is ignored and why two line breaks are processed. -- Groetjes, Roelof PCMCIA: People Can't Memorize Computer Industry Acronyms. http://www.voormijalleen.nl/ The Bat! 4.2.10.4 Windows Vista 6.0 Build 6001 Service Pack 1 6 pop3 accounts, 1 imap account OTFE enabled Quad Core 2.4GHz 4 GB RAM pgpuIqM7nOzob.pgp Description: PGP signature Current version is 4.2.9.1 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Please help me understand the Pros and Cons of MicroEd (many, many wrapping issues)
Hello AC, On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 00:23:04 -0700 GMT (22/Aug/09, 14:23 PM +0700 GMT), AC wrote: A When I asked for this as a support ticket, the answer I got was this: A Hello, A I am sorry to say, but this is not a bug, it's a feature of MicroEd. A Auto-Format works that way for years and we do not intend to change A that... A I don't quite understand why they would refuse to add an option for A this. They added the option many versions ago: You can use the Windows editor. Many people were unhappy with the way MicroEd works, because most editors under Windows (notably the ones from Microsoft) behave in a certain way and people just wanted to stick with what they were used to. The Windows editor complies with that. I myself prefer MicroEd, the way it is, but that is my personal choice. -- Cheers, Thomas. http://thomas.fernandez.hat-gar-keine-homepage.de/ Message reply created with The Bat! 4.2.9.4 under Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 3 Current version is 4.2.9.1 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Please help me understand the Pros and Cons of MicroEd (many, many wrapping issues)
Hi On Saturday 22 August 2009 at 4:48:54 PM, in mid:333266767.2009084...@thomas-bkk.my-fqdn.de, Thomas Fernandez wrote: I myself prefer MicroEd, the way it is, but that is my personal choice. We all work slightly differently and have different preferences. I like MicroEd with Auto-Format turned off so that a line ends when I say it ends if that is sooner than I have chosen for default wrapping. On the odd occasion that I edit a paragraph, it is no bother to re-wrap it with ALT+L. -- Best regards, MFPA Don't be silly, it's all make believe anyway Using The Bat! v4.0.38 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Current version is 4.2.9.1 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Please help me understand the Pros and Cons of MicroEd (many, many wrapping issues)
On Sat, 2009-08-22, Thomas Fernandez wrote: They added the option many versions ago: You can use the Windows editor. Many people were unhappy with the way MicroEd works, because most editors under Windows (notably the ones from Microsoft) behave in a certain way and people just wanted to stick with what they were used to. The Windows editor complies with that. I myself prefer MicroEd, the way it is, but that is my personal choice. I, on the other hand, much prefer the Windows editor. However, it has a problem for me that could be cured with a simple checkbox. When I am composing, the editor wraps lines in a paragraph at my specified margin (75 chars). Unfortunately, when the message is transmitted, the paragraphs are sent *without* wrapping. Thus my correspondents see lines that either wrap at *their* window edges or extend off the window to the right and must be scrolled to be seen depending on their particular email client. I have gotten into the habit of 1) separating paragraphs with a blank line and 2) just before sending the message I select Options Message Format Plain Text (MicroEd) (which causes all paragraphs to become one long line each). I then select each paragraph like that and hit Alt-L to reformat it and *then* click the send button. Now I have figured the reason is that RitLabs considers that the Windows Editor is to be normally used with proportional fonts and that the number of characters is not an appropriate measurement (although they seem to handle it fine during editing). If there was an option to specify the final width by inches, cm, picas, points,... and if I choose a fixed pitch font so I could get that 75 character line, I would be very pleased. BTW, as you can see by my sig, I am using TB v2.11 and it *is* possible that some such feature has been incorporated into a more recent version. If so, I might (might!) be tempted to upgrade. -- Bill McQuillan bill.mcquil...@pobox.com Using The Bat! 2.11 on Windows XP 5.1 build 2600-Service Pack 2 Current version is 4.2.9.1 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Please help me understand the Pros and Cons of MicroEd (many, many wrapping issues)
Hello Bill, On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 10:32:20 -0700 GMT (23/Aug/09, 0:32 AM +0700 GMT), Bill McQuillan wrote: They added the option many versions ago: You can use the Windows editor. Many people were unhappy with the way MicroEd works, because most editors under Windows (notably the ones from Microsoft) behave in a certain way and people just wanted to stick with what they were used to. The Windows editor complies with that. I myself prefer MicroEd, the way it is, but that is my personal choice. BM I, on the other hand, much prefer the Windows editor. That's fine. TB! offers both editors so that the users have a choice. BM However, it has a problem for me that could be cured with a simple BM checkbox. BM When I am composing, the editor wraps lines in a paragraph at my specified BM margin (75 chars). Unfortunately, when the message is transmitted, the BM paragraphs are sent *without* wrapping. Thus my correspondents see lines BM that either wrap at *their* window edges or extend off the window to the BM right and must be scrolled to be seen depending on their particular email BM client. Yes, that's the way the Windows editor works. BM I have gotten into the habit of 1) separating paragraphs with a blank line BM and 2) just before sending the message I select Options Message Format Plain Text (MicroEd) (which causes all paragraphs to become one long BM line each). I then select each paragraph like that and hit Alt-L to BM reformat it and *then* click the send button. Now I'm confused. Are you using MicroEd? If so, there is no need to hit format first, just alt-click. It's necessary for me only if I added some words into a paragraphm as I have auto-format off. Oh, you can set auto-format on, then you don't need to hit alt-L, as you prefer. And yes, a new paragraph starts after 2 line feeds, that's normal (IMHO). Also in Windows editors (for example in MS-Word) I hit enter twice to mark a new paragraph. It doesn't look good otherwise. Maybe there is even a grammar rule about it. BM Now I have figured the reason is that RitLabs considers that the Windows BM Editor is to be normally used with proportional fonts and that the number BM of characters is not an appropriate measurement (although they seem to BM handle it fine during editing). If there was an option to specify the final BM width by inches, cm, picas, points,... and if I choose a fixed pitch font BM so I could get that 75 character line, I would be very pleased. I don't know about this. BM BTW, as you can see by my sig, I am using TB v2.11 and it *is* possible BM that some such feature has been incorporated into a more recent version. If BM so, I might (might!) be tempted to upgrade. I don't think MicroEd has changed since TB! v1.x, except for the ability to use UTF. I don't know about the Windows editor. -- Cheers, Thomas. http://thomas.fernandez.hat-gar-keine-homepage.de/ Message reply created with The Bat! 4.2.9.4 under Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 3 Current version is 4.2.9.1 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Please help me understand the Pros and Cons of MicroEd (many, many wrapping issues)
I cannot get my head around MicroEd. I want to like it, but I always have problems with wrapping issues. Please help me answer some questions: Question #1: What are the differences between MicroEd and Plain Windows? Question #2: What does Auto-Format do? Please be detailed, I don't get it. Question #3: Why can't the paragraphs wrap to the window size rather than a certain number of characters? Question #4: Sometimes I write an email, it looks fine. But when the other person recieves it, the wrapping is all crazy with alternating long/short lines. As if one of my lines was being wrapped before it should be and the leftover spills over to the next line. Question #5: Why do we have to use Alt-L to reformat the wrapping if you go back and edit? All other editors everywhere in the world do this automatically. Is this a MicroEd thing, or does it happen with the Windows editor also? Current version is 4.2.9.1 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Please help me understand the Pros and Cons of MicroEd (many, many wrapping issues)
Hallo AC, On Thu, 20 Aug 2009 23:58:00 -0700GMT (21-8-2009, 8:58 +0200, where I live), you wrote: A Question #1: A What are the differences between MicroEd and Plain Windows? Mainly the wrapping and the free caret (in MicroEd you can place the cursor anywhere and start typing, with the Windows editor you need to insert the correct number of empty lines and the correct number of spaces) Also the Windows editor starts a new line at the beginning and MicroEd starts it at the same 'tab' as the previous line. More like this and this A Question #2: A What does Auto-Format do? Please be detailed, I don't get it. I don't know everything. ;-) It doesn't like new lines, when hit enter and continue typing it continues on the same line. To really start a new line you've got to start a new paragraph: hit enter twice so you've got an empty line in between. When you start typing in the middle of some text it keeps on wrapping everything correctly instead of what you experience with question 5. A Question #3: A Why can't the paragraphs wrap to the window size rather than a certain A number of characters? That way your contact will see what you see as the size of his window and yours don't have to be the same. Kinda nice for tables and such. It's also for compatibility with text mode systems and prevents problems with PGP for instance. You can set the length of the lines yourself. A Question #4: A Sometimes I write an email, it looks fine. But when the other person A recieves it, the wrapping is all crazy with alternating long/short A lines. As if one of my lines was being wrapped before it should be A and the leftover spills over to the next line. If your contact sees things different from what you see then he's probably using a font that doesn't have all characters with the same width. (Google for proportional and non-proportional fonts) TB alligns with spaces and if your contact sees those with a different width... A Question #5: A Why do we have to use Alt-L to reformat the wrapping if you go back A and edit? All other editors everywhere in the world do this A automatically. Is this a MicroEd thing, or does it happen with the A Windows editor also? It doesn't happen with the Windows editor, nor does it happen when you enable auto-format. A A Current version is 4.2.9.1 | 'Using TBUDL' information: A http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html -- Groetjes, Roelof Real SysOps hate authors of bad Shareware programs begging for money. http://www.voormijalleen.nl/ The Bat! 4.2.10.4 Windows Vista 6.0 Build 6001 Service Pack 1 6 pop3 accounts, 1 imap account OTFE enabled Quad Core 2.4GHz 4 GB RAM pgpBlPFXhGDem.pgp Description: PGP signature Current version is 4.2.9.1 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Please help me understand the Pros and Cons of MicroEd (many, many wrapping issues)
Hello Roelof, On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 10:46:58 +0200 GMT (21/Aug/09, 15:46 PM +0700 GMT), Roelof Otten wrote: A Question #4: A Sometimes I write an email, it looks fine. But when the other person A recieves it, the wrapping is all crazy with alternating long/short A lines. As if one of my lines was being wrapped before it should be A and the leftover spills over to the next line. RO If your contact sees things different from what you see then he's RO probably using a font that doesn't have all characters with the same RO width. (Google for proportional and non-proportional fonts) TB alligns RO with spaces and if your contact sees those with a different width... I think the long/short lines appear when you use CR in the middle of a line. @AC: When you type in MicroEd, there is not need to hit enter at the end of the line, just continue typing. MicroEd should wrap it nicely, and if it doesn't, use alt-L. At the end of a paragraph, hit enter twice. -- Cheers, Thomas. http://thomas.fernandez.hat-gar-keine-homepage.de/ Message reply created with The Bat! 4.2.9.4 under Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 3 Current version is 4.2.9.1 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Please help me understand the Pros and Cons of MicroEd (many, many wrapping issues)
Hi AC, on Thu, 20 Aug 2009 23:58:00 -0700GMT (21.08.2009, 08:58 +0200GMT here), you wrote: A ... A Question #5: A Why do we have to use Alt-L to reformat the wrapping if you go back A and edit? All other editors everywhere in the world do this A automatically... This doesn't mean that it is the best way. MicroEd leaves the decision to you if you want to wrap your edited message or keep that extra-long line. I prefer this. :) -- Cheers Peter Life is the art of drawing sufficient conclusions from insufficient premises. Samuel Butler (1612-1680) Current version is 4.2.9.1 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Please help me understand the Pros and Cons of MicroEd (many, many wrapping issues)
Hi On Friday 21 August 2009 at 3:03:12 PM, in mid:1614134956.20090821210...@thomas-bkk.my-fqdn.de, Thomas Fernandez wrote: I think the long/short lines appear when you use CR in the middle of a line. Maybe the person is reading the message in an application that wraps at the window edge. If the line length in the message is a bit longer than his window width, the rest of that line spills onto the next line of his display. Then another new line starts on his screen where the message text begins a new line. Alternatively, look at these messages in the Outbox or the Sent folder to see if your copy has alternating long and short lines, too. If it is a message you have gone back and edited but not reformatted with ALT+L (assuming you are not using auto-format) then TB! will have wrapped any excessively long lines but maybe not to the width in your editor settings. I have TB! set to wrap at 70 characters but in the case just outlined, overly long lines are wrapped at something like 96 characters when the message is sent or saved to Outbox. -- Best regards, MFPA Never trust a dog with orange eyebrows Using The Bat! v4.0.38 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Current version is 4.2.9.1 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Please help me understand the Pros and Cons of MicroEd (many, many wrapping issues)
Hi On Friday 21 August 2009 at 7:13:56 PM, in mid:524980689.20090821201...@nosuchdomain.com, Peter Meyns wrote: MicroEd leaves the decision to you if you want to wrap your edited message or keep that extra-long line. I have wrapping set to 70 characters. I can keep the extra-long line in the editor window but when I put the message in the outbox any extra-long lines are wrapped at 96 characters. -- Best regards, MFPA It is bad luck to be superstitious. Using The Bat! v4.0.38 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Current version is 4.2.9.1 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Microed editor not respecting the return
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 at 19:37:22 -0700, AC wrote: When I use the Microed editor to write, I press Enter to start a new line, but as soon as I start typing, the typing continues on the previous line where I had left off. So it's a little frustrating. Some more info. The options I have enable for Micro-ed specific options are: auto-wrap, auto-format, smart tabs, backspace unindents, find text at caret position. Try turning auto-format off. If it drives you crazy, try the Windows-compatible editor. -- Robin Using The Bat! v4.1.11 Windows Vista 6.0 Build 6002 Service Pack 2 Popfile v1.1.0 Current version is 4.2.6 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Microed editor not respecting the return
AC: The reason I have settled on the options above is because of previous frustrations with Microed that I've written here about before. The main one being my problem with being able to automatically wordwrap lines after going back and editing lines in the middle of a message. Does anyone else run into these frustrations with microEd? Sure. Me, I've been waiting for years. Not only the MicroEd doesn't get any improvement because of it's nature, but neither the windows-like editor gets any of the necessary features you can find in MicroEd, like reformat quoting. The Bat has three editors and at least two of them are crippled (can't talk about the html one, since I don't use it). TB's programmers, supported by old fans, simply won't understand it. After all these years, I would have expected it to be a little more normal and easy to use. Me too. Just look at 40tude Dialog's Editor. -- Luca - e-mail: p.stevens at linuxfan.it Current version is 4.2.6 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Microed editor not respecting the return
hello luca On Saturday, July 18, 2009, 2:53:51 AM, you wrote: i agree completely! microed is plain funky in terms of formatting and the windows plain text editor doesn't work as a normal editor should. an example is that [ctrl-delete] deletes a single character instead of the entire word. at least that function works properly in microed. Sure. Me, I've been waiting for years. Not only the MicroEd doesn't get any improvement because of it's nature, but neither the windows-like editor gets any of the necessary features you can find in MicroEd, like reformat quoting. After all these years, I would have expected it to be a little more normal and easy to use. -- best regards, m.davidson Current version is 4.2.6 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Microed editor not respecting the return
When I use the Microed editor to write, I press Enter to start a new line, but as soon as I start typing, the typing continues on the previous line where I had left off. So it's a little frustrating. Some more info. The options I have enable for Micro-ed specific options are: auto-wrap, auto-format, smart tabs, backspace unindents, find text at caret position. The reason I have settled on the options above is because of previous frustrations with Microed that I've written here about before. The main one being my problem with being able to automatically wordwrap lines after going back and editing lines in the middle of a message. Does anyone else run into these frustrations with microEd? After all these years, I would have expected it to be a little more normal and easy to use. I don't understand why this stuff happens or why it doesn't behave like any other editor for the simple stuff. I love the Bat tremendously, but these little things about microed keep coming up and they never seem to get fixed. __ Aram Current version is 4.2.6 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: How to get MicroEd to use us-ascii?
On Thursday, May 8, 2008, 11:45:04 AM, Dwight A Corrin wrote: DAC On Thursday, May 8, 2008, 1:33:59 PM, ztrader wrote: How can I set an option to have MicroEd use us-ascii [or some font that Outlook can handle absolutely reliably] for a particular folder and still keep the editing features? DAC Your message shows Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit H that's odd. When I compose a note from this folder and save it to the outbox, then look at the headers in the outbox, I get Subject: test font MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit which sounds right since I have Western European (ISO) set for this folder. I also checked the previous note I sent, and it had the same coding in the headers before I sent it. The headers for THIS EMAIL copied from the OUTBOX, before sending, are Subject: Re[2]: How to get MicroEd to use us-ascii? In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] References: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Let me send it and see what gets received... ztrader Current version is 4.0.24.0 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[3]: How to get MicroEd to use us-ascii?
On Friday, May 9, 2008, 11:24:20 AM, ztrader wrote: z On Thursday, May 8, 2008, 11:45:04 AM, Dwight A Corrin wrote: DAC On Thursday, May 8, 2008, 1:33:59 PM, ztrader wrote: How can I set an option to have MicroEd use us-ascii [or some font that Outlook can handle absolutely reliably] for a particular folder and still keep the editing features? DAC Your message shows Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit z H that's odd. When I compose a note from this folder and save z it to the outbox, then look at the headers in the outbox, I get z Subject: test font z MIME-Version: 1.0 z Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 z Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit z which sounds right since I have Western European (ISO) set for this z folder. I also checked the previous note I sent, and it had the same z coding in the headers before I sent it. z The headers for THIS EMAIL copied from the OUTBOX, before sending, are z Subject: Re[2]: How to get MicroEd to use us-ascii? z In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] z References: [EMAIL PROTECTED] z [EMAIL PROTECTED] z MIME-Version: 1.0 z Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 z Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit z Let me send it and see what gets received... Hmmm... interesting this email has Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit which does not seem to be what was in the outbox before sending. Why are these different? ztrader Current version is 4.0.24.0 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: How to get MicroEd to use us-ascii?
Hallo ztrader, On Fri, 9 May 2008 11:30:33 -0700GMT (9-5-2008, 20:30 +0200, where I live), you wrote: Z Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Z Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Z which does not seem to be what was in the outbox before sending. Why Z are these different? What is in the Sent Mail folder after sending? And the mail server might change something... -- Groetjes, Roelof Where law ends, there tyranny begins. http://www.voormijalleen.nl/ The Bat! 4.0.24.7 Windows Vista 6.0 Build 6000 3 pop3 accounts OTFE enabled P4 3GHz 2 GB RAM pgpTegtUAfuEo.pgp Description: PGP signature Current version is 4.0.24.0 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: How to get MicroEd to use us-ascii?
On Friday, May 9, 2008, 1:15:53 PM, Roelof Otten wrote: RO Hallo ztrader, RO On Fri, 9 May 2008 11:30:33 -0700GMT (9-5-2008, 20:30 +0200, where I RO live), you wrote: Z Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Z Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Z which does not seem to be what was in the outbox before sending. Why Z are these different? RO What is in the Sent Mail folder after sending? Good question - Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit is in all 3 sent headers. RO And the mail server might change something... An interesting possibility. I'll check on that. Would the list software perhaps change such things? This email, in the outbox, is different [Latin 9] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Let's see what gets sent... :-) ztrader Current version is 4.0.24.0 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: How to get MicroEd to use us-ascii?
Hallo ztrader, On Fri, 9 May 2008 14:06:20 -0700GMT (9-5-2008, 23:06 +0200, where I live), you wrote: RO And the mail server might change something... Z An interesting possibility. I'll check on that. Would the list Z software perhaps change such things? It might. After all it appends a signature to the message and I can imagine that it'll check for the proper character set. And without any odd characters us-ascii is the proper set. Z This email, in the outbox, is different [Latin 9] Z Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15 Z Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit us-ascii again :-) -- Groetjes, Roelof Unbelief in one thing springs = blind belief in another. http://www.voormijalleen.nl/ The Bat! 4.0.24.7 Windows Vista 6.0 Build 6000 3 pop3 accounts OTFE enabled P4 3GHz 2 GB RAM pgpEIwfCCauCn.pgp Description: PGP signature Current version is 4.0.24.0 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
How to get MicroEd to use us-ascii?
A couple of Outlook users have reported that my emails to them look 'messed up'. This seems to happen when TB uses the windows-1252 font and 8-bit coding - the result of having Plain Text (MicroEd) selected. If I select Plain Text (Windows) instead, I get 7-bit us-ascii and all seems to be OK. If I set Plain Text (Windows), though, I seem to lose some editing/formatting features. How can I set an option to have MicroEd use us-ascii [or some font that Outlook can handle absolutely reliably] for a particular folder and still keep the editing features? I don't seem to see that as a choice, and windows-1252 does not seem to be there either. I am interested in plain text only - no HTML. Thanks, ztrader Current version is 4.0.24.0 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: How to get MicroEd to use us-ascii?
On Thursday, May 8, 2008, 1:33:59 PM, ztrader wrote: How can I set an option to have MicroEd use us-ascii [or some font that Outlook can handle absolutely reliably] for a particular folder and still keep the editing features? Your message shows Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -- Dwight A. Corrin 316.303.9385 phone ahead to fax dcorrin at fastmail.fm photo galleries at http://dcorrin.smugmug.com Using IMAP with The Bat! 4.0.24.6 on Windows XP version 5,1 (Service Pack 2) Current version is 4.0.24.0 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: MicroEd
Hello Marek, Saturday, October 13, 2007, 6:00:06 PM, you wrote: MM new Microed which supports Unicode is underdevelopment and should be MM introduced in 4.x. Great news and a big incentive to upgrade! -- Dougmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** TheBat! Voyager 3.99.4 on Windows XP Current version is 3.99.25 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
MicroEd
Hello TBudl, I much prefer using MicroEd text editor, but it doesn't do Unicode. I would love for this to be tweaked at some point so I can continue using it. I've had to abandon it for the Windows text editor instead. Does anyone else have these problems? -- Doug mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** TheBat! Voyager 3.99.4 on Windows XP Current version is 3.99.24 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: MicroEd
Hello all, Friday, October 12, 2007, Doug Higby wrote: I much prefer using MicroEd text editor, but it doesn't do Unicode. I would love for this to be tweaked at some point so I can continue using it. I've had to abandon it for the Windows text editor instead. Does anyone else have these problems? new Microed which supports Unicode is underdevelopment and should be introduced in 4.x. -- Bye Marek Mikus Czech support of The Bat! http://www.thebat.cz Using the best The Bat! 3.99.24 under Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 2 with MyMacros,XMP,AnotherMacros, NOD32 Antivirus plugin and AntispamSniper v 2.6.1.5 Notebook Toshiba, Core2 Duo 1.83 GHz, 1 GB RAM Current version is 3.99.24 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: MicroEd vs Plain text
Hi Robin, Wednesday, March 29, 2006, 6:31:59 AM, you wrote: Sounds as though you don't have the auto-wrap turned on in MicroEd Should this also effect text that is pasted into MicroEd? I sometimes paste text in which doesn't wrap and I have to use Alt-L to wrap it correctly to the specific width. -- Warmest regards, Paul Created using TheBat! 3.72.04 (Beta) on Windows XP Current version is 3.71.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: MicroEd vs Plain text
On Wed, 29 Mar 2006 at 16:01:11 +0100, Paul wrote: Should this also effect text that is pasted into MicroEd? I sometimes paste text in which doesn't wrap and I have to use Alt-L to wrap it correctly to the specific width. No, auto-wrap only works when you type something from the keyboard. If you added a space at the end of the pasted text it would reformat the paragraph. -- Robin Using The Bat! v3.0.1.33 Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 2 Popfile v0.22.3 Current version is 3.71.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: MicroEd vs Plain text
Hi Robin, Wednesday, March 29, 2006, 8:47:50 PM, you wrote: No, auto-wrap only works when you type something from the keyboard. If you added a space at the end of the pasted text it would reformat the paragraph. Great, thanks Robin! -- Warmest regards, Paul Created using TheBat! 3.72.04 (Beta) on Windows XP Current version is 3.71.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: MicroEd vs Plain text
Hi On Sunday 26 March 2006 at 4:56:56 PM, in mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED], Richard Wakeford wrote: You can't request a person to alter the width of their sent mail You *can* request ;-) It's maybe an option that should be asked for in TB! then, that incoming mail, if longer than the stipulated length chosen by the recipient (in my case 72 characters) that the mail has a sort of automatic ALT + L performed on it (as you can do when quoting long lines in a reply with MicroEd) to set the mail to the desired width, whatever the width of the preview pane? Or even the ability to do a manual ALT + L? -- Best regards, MFPA Editing is a rewording activity Using The Bat! v3.0.1.33 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 1 Current version is 3.71.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: MicroEd vs Plain text
RA On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 at 21:11:52 -0800, Larry wrote: RW Hello Larry, Hmm. On my screen, with Windows prop fonts the lines wrap but when switching to plain text they go accross the screen. And this reply, using WinEd wraps at the when above but when I switch to MicroEd it goes all the way across the screen. Do I have some setting wrong? Or misunderstanding how the two are supposed to display? RA Sounds as though you don't have the auto-wrap turned on in MicroEd. In my RA version it is under the Utilities menu (in MicroEd). Also under RA Preferences-Editor Preferences (in my version) you need to have an RA appropriate value for Wrap text at. Nope. it's turned on. Would font select have something to do with it? Larry -- TheBat! 3.71.03 Windows XP Current version is 3.71.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: MicroEd vs Plain text
Hello MFPA, On Wed, 29 Mar 2006 you wrote in mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] You can't request a person to alter the width of their sent mail M You *can* request ;-) OK, touché :-) to set the mail to the desired width, whatever the width of the preview pane? M Or even the ability to do a manual ALT + L? Which is what I do anyway but I was just trying to have a reasoned argument there ;-) -- Regards, Richard | The Bat! 3.72.05 (Beta) with SpamPal POP3 account and no Plug-ins | Windows XP (build 2600), version 5. 1 Service Pack 2 | F-Prot AV, Outpost Firewall Pro 3.0, Spysweeper, Adaware, SpyBot Holiday in France: http://perso.wanadoo.fr/lazyhomes/holiday.html Current version is 3.71.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: MicroEd vs Plain text
Hello WL, On 3/27/06, Martin Schuster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: *Technically* I think it would be no problem to build mail clients that wrap unwrapped text automatically at a user-given width, so everyone would be able to read the mail just as wide as he wants. Everyone would send unwrapped lines, a CR/LF would mean start a new paragraph, and everyone would be happy. and WL answered: ...except this _will_ break some existing email clients. Outlook users do this a lot, and I used to use an email client that would crash on emails from Outlook users. I narrowed it down to a single, very long line. RFC 2822 (email format) says a line must not be longer than 998 characters not counting the CRLF, and should not be greater than 78. This is more or less what rfc 2821 (smtp) says about the maximum length of a line. Yeah. As I stated in my second paragraph I am aware that using unwrapped mail all of a sudden would need RFCs to be changed and all people update their email clients to nowrap-aware ones. I just wanted to point out that there is no *technical* limitation that forces us to wrap. Its an internet-cultural problem: having all kinds of clients, having to use old standards to be compatible, etc. etc. -- Martin TB! 3.72.02 (Beta) on Windows XP 5.1 Service Pack 2 Current version is 3.71.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: MicroEd vs Plain text
Hello Larry, On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 you wrote in mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] LW I like using the MicroEd but I can't stand the longer lines. Weird. Your reply comes out full screen width here. -- Regards, Richard | The Bat! 3.72.04 (Beta) with SpamPal POP3 account and no Plug-ins | Windows XP (build 2600), version 5. 1 Service Pack 2 | F-Prot AV, Outpost Firewall Pro 3.0, Spysweeper, Adaware, SpyBot Holiday in France: http://perso.wanadoo.fr/lazyhomes/holiday.html Current version is 3.71.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: MicroEd vs Plain text
Hi Richard, Tuesday, March 28, 2006, 11:29:30 AM, you wrote: Weird. Your reply comes out full screen width here. Ditto :) -- Warmest regards, Paul Created using TheBat! 3.72.04 (Beta) on Windows XP Current version is 3.71.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: MicroEd vs Plain text
Hello Larry Wing everyone else, on 28-Mrz-2006 at 07:57 you (Larry Wing) wrote: I like using the MicroEd but I can't stand the longer lines. Seems like you're confusing MicroEd with WinEd. The latter is the one with the unwrapped lines. -- Best regards, Alexander (http://www.neurowerx.de - ICQ 238153981) There are three kinds of people in the world: those who can count, and those who can't. Current version is 3.71.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: MicroEd vs Plain text
RW Hello Larry, RW On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 you wrote in RW mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] LW I like using the MicroEd but I can't stand the longer lines. RW Weird. Your reply comes out full screen width here. Hmm. On my screen, with Windows prop fonts the lines wrap but when switching to plain text they go accross the screen. And this reply, using WinEd wraps at the when above but when I switch to MicroEd it goes all the way across the screen. Do I have some setting wrong? Or misunderstanding how the two are supposed to display? Larry -- TheBat! 3.71.03 Windows XP Current version is 3.71.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: MicroEd vs Plain text
On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 at 21:11:52 -0800, Larry wrote: RW Hello Larry, Hmm. On my screen, with Windows prop fonts the lines wrap but when switching to plain text they go accross the screen. And this reply, using WinEd wraps at the when above but when I switch to MicroEd it goes all the way across the screen. Do I have some setting wrong? Or misunderstanding how the two are supposed to display? Sounds as though you don't have the auto-wrap turned on in MicroEd. In my version it is under the Utilities menu (in MicroEd). Also under Preferences-Editor Preferences (in my version) you need to have an appropriate value for Wrap text at. -- Robin Using The Bat! v3.0.1.33 Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 2 Popfile v0.22.3 Current version is 3.71.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: MicroEd vs Plain text
Hello Paul, Having read the whole wrapping-discussion in one flow I can't resist adding my few thoughts about that topic. Because I think both Alexander and Paul are right: *Technically* I think it would be no problem to build mail clients that wrap unwrapped text automatically at a user-given width, so everyone would be able to read the mail just as wide as he wants. Everyone would send unwrapped lines, a CR/LF would mean start a new paragraph, and everyone would be happy. BUT: the problem is that you can't switch such an old standard (as mail is) in one day. So there would be a long time when there would still be users that see the unwrapped mails in spaghetti-like lines because their client does not do wrapping at anything else than the window border, or even worse in a unix console some archaic client does not do any wrapping at all...and so on. So I gave up the hope for unwrapped mails a few years ago and looked for a good editor that at least makes the task of composing wrapped lines easier. Micro-Ed is just that. -- Martin TB! 3.71.03 on Windows XP 5.1 Service Pack 2 Current version is 3.71.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: MicroEd vs Plain text
Hello, all. On 3/27/06, Martin Schuster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: *Technically* I think it would be no problem to build mail clients that wrap unwrapped text automatically at a user-given width, so everyone would be able to read the mail just as wide as he wants. Everyone would send unwrapped lines, a CR/LF would mean start a new paragraph, and everyone would be happy. ...except this _will_ break some existing email clients. Outlook users do this a lot, and I used to use an email client that would crash on emails from Outlook users. I narrowed it down to a single, very long line. RFC 2822 (email format) says a line must not be longer than 998 characters not counting the CRLF, and should not be greater than 78. This is more or less what rfc 2821 (smtp) says about the maximum length of a line. Even within the format=flowed world, the line widths should be less than 80, and the recommendation is 66 characters (rfc 2646). So I gave up the hope for unwrapped mails a few years ago and looked for a good editor that at least makes the task of composing wrapped lines easier. Micro-Ed is just that. I do like how micro-ed can figure out what is quoted, and act like format=flowed display. Now, it just has do utf-8 encoding... -- WL Current version is 3.71.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: MicroEd vs Plain text
ASK Hello Paul Meathrel everyone else, ASK on 22-Mrz-2006 at 19:02 you (Paul Meathrel) wrote: So here's the question, what are the benefits of MicroEd as compared with the Plain text editor? ASK For me its the (auto)formatting options and the hard wrapping at the ASK column I specify. WinEd just wraps on-screen, but not in the actually ASK sent message. Your original message is just one single very long line ASK which appears as three lines in my preview window - I find that rather ASK hard to read. ASK I only have auto-wrap enabled and use ALT+L on the quotes and my own ASK text to format it nicely. I like using the MicroEd but I can't stand the longer lines. I need the shorter lines to read. I also like that the MicroEd places citations correctly where the WinEd will not (see above as an example, if your display is the same.) Is there no way to have the MicroEd wrap at 70 on the screen and to auto-wrap at 70 when replying? Larry -- TheBat! 3.71.03 Windows XP Current version is 3.71.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: MicroEd vs Plain text
Hi, ,- - [ Le samedi 25 mars 2006 vers 20:55 Alexander S. Kunz écrivait: ] - - | Discouraged: readability, we've been thru that already. :-) Avoiding hardwrap does not limit the readability as the reader remain able to display the message with a 76 chars width... and a message without hardwrap is much more readable on some devices than a message with (PDA, cellular,...)... thus you told that hardwrapping is encouraged to lower the readability of the mails ? :p I can live with it if i need to, i just do not understand why it's the recommended way to do when there are another way much more compatible with every screen and user wish... I dare say that it is very much a compatibility issue, even today... :-( I still do not see the compatibility problem : is there some systems unable to read correctly messages without hardwrapping ? That question remain open for me : is there a compatibility problem with mails using no hardwrapping ? Is someone unable to read this mail because their reader cannot wrap itself ? I've used emails for really long time, even before using Internet i was Fidonet node (2:291/713), i've used Golded for years, even golded under MSDos was able to wrap messages without the need of hardwrap in it... in that time already i was sometimes using a console with 132 columns and not the standard 80 :) | `- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Best regards... _ (_' L'informatique est ma passion, vous la simplifier, mon métier ! ,_)téphane Bouvard [antarex AT freenet DOT be] http://www.antarex.be Current version is 3.71.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: MicroEd vs Plain text
Hi, ,- - [ Le dimanche 26 mars 2006 vers 12:39 Alexander S. Kunz écrivait: ] - - | the square brakets in your realname are getting pretty annoying, the listmailer again rejected the message as containing to many recipients. :-[ It allow me to disting different accounts, i will change it to use ( ) in place I find your messages are pretty hard to read when you use WinEd. Because TB doesn't wrap incoming messages for me. Really strange, i use TB also of course, i've tried with the two differents reader options available in TB (Plain Text viewer Rich Text/HTML), the two readers correctly wrap my previous mail to the width i've defined for my reader pane, i never see any horizontal scroll bar, the text never flow outside of the right margin... When i change the width of the reader pane, TB automatically rewrap the text to feed the new width. Wich reader settings did you use in your TB ? Just like it doesn't un-wrap them for you. So, I could take just the opposite position and say why doesn't everyone wrap their mails at column 73, it would help me so much. Normaly your TB should wrap the mail i've sent previously automaticaly, i do not understand why it does'nt for you, i've never seen such a behavior... | `- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Best regards... _ (_' L'informatique est ma passion, vous la simplifier, mon métier ! ,_)téphane Bouvard [antarex AT freenet DOT be] http://www.antarex.be Current version is 3.71.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: MicroEd vs Plain text
Hello Stephane Bouvard (ML) everyone else, on 26-Mrz-2006 at 14:23 you (Stephane Bouvard (ML)) wrote: I find your messages are pretty hard to read when you use WinEd. Because TB doesn't wrap incoming messages for me. Really strange, i use TB also of course, i've tried with the two differents reader options available in TB (Plain Text viewer Rich Text/HTML), the two readers correctly wrap my previous mail to the width i've defined for my reader pane Yeah, to the window border of the reader pane, dude. Thats far to wide for my taste, and not a very custom wrapping of incoming messages. TB does NOT wrap incoming messages anywhere else but at the window border. It never has. If I'd be using a full-width preview pane that would hardly be what I want. -- Best regards, Alexander (http://www.neurowerx.de - ICQ 238153981) Deliplayer2 is playing: Circuits Of The Imagination (3:12) by Shpongle from the album 'Nothing Lasts' Current version is 3.71.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: MicroEd vs Plain text
Hello Alexander, On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 you wrote in mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ASK Yeah, to the window border of the reader pane, dude. Thats far to wide ASK for my taste, and not a very custom wrapping of incoming messages. I have to agree with you 100% on that one. I have my message pane quite wide and scanning eyes across about 130 character wide text is far harder than a pleasant 72ish wide text setting. -- Regards, Richard | The Bat! 3.72.04 (Beta) with SpamPal POP3 account and no Plug-ins | Windows XP (build 2600), version 5. 1 Service Pack 2 | F-Prot AV, Outpost Firewall Pro 3.0, Spysweeper, Adaware, SpyBot Holiday in France: http://perso.wanadoo.fr/lazyhomes/holiday.html Current version is 3.71.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: MicroEd vs Plain text
On 26/3/2006 at 4:57:10 AM [GMT -0500], Stephane Bouvard [Ml] wrote: I still do not see the compatibility problem : is there some systems unable to read correctly messages without hardwrapping ? That question remain open for me : is there a compatibility problem with mails using no hardwrapping ? Is someone unable to read this mail because their reader cannot wrap itself ? Consider a widescreen format display ... 17. The user decides on a full height account tree layout for TB!. The user also wishes to make use of his screen and show the message list nicely with a few informative columns not all crunched up and chopped off. After-all, he has the screen real estate for it. The preview window is below the message list pane, nice and wide as the message list. At the users font size, text in the preview pane, window wraps at 160 characters. Not very comfortable to read, now is it? So though the wrapping occurs, it's still a problem. So I leave you and that user to argue/discuss about the virtues of hard-wrapping e-mail text. :) This may not be resolved on an individual basis and I like your wish to be able to choose editor via a template macro. However, it's not there ... not yet. :) -- -= Curtis =- The Bat! v3.72.04 (Beta) / http://specs.aimlink.name PGPKey: http://rsakey.aimlink.name ...Suicide is the most sincere form of self criticism. pgpr5xbzDQf8A.pgp Description: PGP signature Current version is 3.71.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: MicroEd vs Plain text
Who would have guessed that Curtis would have said : Consider a widescreen format display ... 17. full height account tree layout show the message list nicely with a few informative columns The preview window is below the message list pane, nice and wide All as above. Though I agree with Wakeford that after about 72ish chars, my eyes just beg for a wrap so they don't begin to skip lines as I move to the right. If one (sort of) speed reads, the angle difference from 70(ish) to 140-160 means that, at the latter, I'd have to keep moving my head/eyes to clasp the groups. At 60-70, once can scan vertically quite comfortably. -- Regards, Robert D. :flag-us-ky: _ The Bat! Version: 3.72.04 (Beta) Windows ME FireFox Current version is 3.71.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: MicroEd vs Plain text
Hi, ,- - [ Le dimanche 26 mars 2006 vers 14:43 Alexander S. Kunz écrivait: ] - - | Really strange, i use TB also of course, i've tried with the two differents reader options available in TB (Plain Text viewer Rich Text/HTML), the two readers correctly wrap my previous mail to the width i've defined for my reader pane Yeah, to the window border of the reader pane, dude. Thats far to wide for my taste, and not a very custom wrapping of incoming messages. Because you request your TB to display the messages wide. It's *your* choice, if you prefer a smaller preview pane, just reduce their size... You cannot tell that *my* message is wrong because *you* requested to read it wide and that you do not like that :) TB does NOT wrap incoming messages anywhere else but at the window border. And it's the much logical way to do : the window size is the size you want to read your messages, if you define this size it's because you want to read with this size, i think it's nice that TB display the message how you want to, at least when there is no hardwrap... It never has. If I'd be using a full-width preview pane that would hardly be what I want. If you do not want to read your messages full width, do not configure your preview pane to display full width, that's your choice, not the choice of the one who send the mail. If you do not want to decrease the size of the preview pane, you can increase the size of your font. - - [ Le dimanche 26 mars 2006 vers 15:27 Richard Wakeford écrivait: ] - - I have to agree with you 100% on that one. I have my message pane quite wide and scanning eyes across about 130 character wide text is far harder than a pleasant 72ish wide text setting. If you do not like to preview your messages wide, why did you keep your preview pane wide ? I understand that peoples prefer read lines of 80 characters, they can define the width of their preview pane for that, it's the purpose of a not fixed width window... But why requesting that the sender must use hardwrap because you've requested your mail reader to display 130 characters per line and that you prefer 80... it's not the fault of the sender if your mail reader is wrongly configured... For me, the sender must use the most standard format to allow a maximum of people to read the message, the width, the font, the color of the text, the color of the background,... must be choosed by the recipient, not by the sender. It's a mail, not a webpage : there should not be formatting in the mail, hardwrapping is a form of formatting, the peoples who do not want to see html in a mail (as i), should also refuse hardwrapping... | `- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Best regards... _ (_' L'informatique est ma passion, vous la simplifier, mon métier ! ,_)téphane Bouvard [antarex AT freenet DOT be] http://www.antarex.be Current version is 3.71.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: MicroEd vs Plain text
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: RIPEMD160 ***^\ ._)~~ ~( __ _o Was another beautiful day, Sun, 26 Mar 2006, @ @ at 11:57:10 +0200, when Stephane Bouvard [ML] wrote: Is someone unable to read this mail because their reader cannot wrap itself ? All the letters are present, although the punctuation marks (: and ? for instance) illiterately used, as to orthographic rules, which decompose consistency of the shape of sentence and thus of the paragraph(s), along with the lines spreading across the whole screen, makes them quite hard for reading, let us put aside the aesthetic moment which is, objectively, emphatically ugly. I've used emails for really long time, Usually enough to understand the reasons of existence of some, quite elementary and simple, rules and standards. Including orthography. - -- Mica PGP keys nestled at: http://blueness.port5.com/pgpkeys/ [Earth LOG: 571 day(s) since v3.0 unleashing] OSs: Windows 98 SE Micro Lite Professional IVa Enterprise Millennium Windows XP(ee) Micro Lite Professional 1.6, and, for TB sometimes, Gentoo and Vector Linuxes via Wine... ~~~ For personal mail please use my address as it is *exactly* given in my From|Reply To field(s). ~~~ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iQEVAwUBRCajwbSpHvHEUtv8AQOAcQgAnb7LINfJnl8jphGjOHOgKmjbCgZwT6Uf BPcNYMg6bhFkE70zEr2oaS6VRhXfjm8ffjrdM9NsTWmgIy7Mq4q83Pb/kCdu8GNp VeEHpF73RypEzoz7Cs1oWu42qRcV7acIJBbqOVSFMGWDLKO0BE+Tcab1K5cKvnJ2 39f4pOcDggnIrBmB67+pUKOMM9APiajTvX2ig6ERA3f5gE5jbpFx943zs2LlV3/D UgCdLLt7zUvdMvvPygty0CjopRPI+km/DOSzQx04y0+BUnFI9bO5aXxNZ6BJ4ueh z/VoGr06v1OCBq+JrMLL3C2j1BF6MBZyVtU6PXkkvUsTeha3pjcoNQ== =JQjy -END PGP SIGNATURE- Current version is 3.71.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: MicroEd vs Plain text
Hello Stephane, On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 you wrote in mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] SBM If you do not like to preview your messages wide, why did you keep your SBM preview pane wide ? Because I have a three pane setting. Folders list full length on the left then Message list at the top and Message pane below that. I like the Message list wide so that I can see the full thread history of the topic under discussion but still like me messages at about 72 Characters wide, which they are with most posters ;-) SBM But why requesting that the sender must use hardwrap because you've SBM requested your mail reader to display 130 characters per line and SBM that you prefer 80... You can't request a person to alter the width of their sent mail but it's just that a narrower mail width is far easier to read. SBM it's not the fault of the sender if your mail reader is wrongly SBM configured... It's maybe an option that should be asked for in TB! then, that incoming mail, if longer than the stipulated length chosen by the recipient (in my case 72 characters) that the mail has a sort of automatic ALT + L performed on it (as you can do when quoting long lines in a reply with MicroEd) to set the mail to the desired width, whatever the width of the preview pane? SBM the peoples who do not want to see html in a mail (as i) and me SBM , should also refuse hardwrapping... I don't see the logic of that exactly because hardwrapping is just making the message (for some) easier to read and is a personal preference that affects no one but themselves. -- Regards, Richard | The Bat! 3.72.04 (Beta) with SpamPal POP3 account and no Plug-ins | Windows XP (build 2600), version 5. 1 Service Pack 2 | F-Prot AV, Outpost Firewall Pro 3.0, Spysweeper, Adaware, SpyBot Holiday in France: http://perso.wanadoo.fr/lazyhomes/holiday.html Current version is 3.71.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: MicroEd vs Plain text
Stephane, this is getting boring and a bit ridiculous, I beg your pardon. The fact that you can't have it your way doesn't mean that you must convince everyone else to want to have it your way. Not that you would be successful, anyway. EOD for me, sorry. -- Best regards, Alexander (http://www.neurowerx.de - ICQ 238153981) For every action, there is an equal and opposite criticism. Current version is 3.71.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: MicroEd vs Plain text
On 26/3/2006 at 9:55:15 AM [GMT -0500], Stephane Bouvard (Ml) wrote: Because you request your TB to display the messages wide. If my or anyone else's TB! window size preference was determined by the size we'd want our preview panes to be, then there would be no problem. It would seem that this has been the case since whenever, hence the convention of wrapping text to a reasonable limit. All clients support this ability. Richard's suggestion that TB! should be able to wrap received text to a user defined limit in the viewer, independent of the preview pane would be the nice thing to have. However, Pegasus Mail is the only client with a viewer I've encountered that will do this. I think Becky! is capable of this as well. But alas, most viewers will not do so. With clients the way they currently are, it's unlikely that your preference will gain popularity. Format=flowed is an interesting system introduced in the RFC to help tackle this problem. However, it will work only if all clients followed suite. -- -= Curtis =- The Bat! v3.72.04 (Beta) / http://specs.aimlink.name PGPKey: http://rsakey.aimlink.name ...A clean desk is a sign of a cluttered desk drawer. pgpftMsVqMlls.pgp Description: PGP signature Current version is 3.71.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: MicroEd vs Plain text
Hello Curtis everyone else, on 26-Mrz-2006 at 19:23 you (Curtis) wrote: Format=flowed is an interesting system introduced in the RFC to help tackle this problem. However, it will work only if all clients followed suite. I assume you only mean that the reflowing will work only if the client supports it? :-) I really like the idea of format=flowed and feel like it needs some advocacy. :-) This system works on *all* clients because the text is still hard wrapped. Whenever a line should be flowed, a client aware of the system will determine this by a trailing space (before the CR/LF), remove the space/CR/LF combination and reflow the text. An unaware client will simply show the hard wrapped text, the trailing space will do no harm. -- Best regards, Alexander (http://www.neurowerx.de - ICQ 238153981) Deliplayer2 is playing: Space Walk (6:12) by Celestus from the 2001 album 'Goa 2001 (CD2)' Current version is 3.71.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: MicroEd vs Plain text
Hi, ,- - [ Le dimanche 26 mars 2006 vers 19:23 Curtis écrivait: ] - - | Richard's suggestion that TB! should be able to wrap received text to a user defined limit in the viewer, independent of the preview pane would be the nice thing to have. However, Pegasus Mail is the only client with a viewer I've encountered that will do this. I think Becky! is capable of this as well. But alas, most viewers will not do so. It seems that the only thing needed is the following : be able to resize the preview pane independently of the others panes, technicaly, just adding a fake pane on the right side of the preview pane must do it, resizing this fake empty pane will automaticaly resize the preview pane also, allowing to automaticaly wrap the mails the way anyone want... it seems logical that the width of the preview pane is the width the user want to preview their mails, the only actual problem is that TB does not allow to resize it independently. Maybe an idea for ritlabs : i think this option should really not be difficult to implement, and will offer a great solution for people who want to preview their mails on a smaller width... Format=flowed is an interesting system introduced in the RFC to help tackle this problem. However, it will work only if all clients followed suite. Format=flowed did not help with existing email clients wich use a smaller width, like PDA, cellular,... those softwares work perfectly well when there is no hardwrap... but we can hope that those softwares will be able someday to remove the space/CR/LF then reformat the mail... | `- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Best regards... _ (_' L'informatique est ma passion, vous la simplifier, mon métier ! ,_)téphane Bouvard [antarex AT freenet DOT be] http://www.antarex.be Current version is 3.71.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: MicroEd vs Plain text
Hello Stephane, On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 you wrote in mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] SBM It seems that the only thing needed is the following : be able to SBM resize the preview pane independently of the others panes...it SBM seems logical that the width of the preview pane is the width the SBM user want to preview their mails, the only actual problem is that SBM TB does not allow to resize it independently. Ye gods. Complicated or what. -- Regards, Richard | The Bat! 3.72.04 (Beta) with SpamPal POP3 account and no Plug-ins | Windows XP (build 2600), version 5. 1 Service Pack 2 | F-Prot AV, Outpost Firewall Pro 3.0, Spysweeper, Adaware, SpyBot Holiday in France: http://perso.wanadoo.fr/lazyhomes/holiday.html Current version is 3.71.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: MicroEd vs Plain text
Hello Stephane Bouvard (ML) everyone else, on 26-Mrz-2006 at 23:03 you (Stephane Bouvard (ML)) wrote: Maybe an idea for ritlabs : i think this option should really not be difficult to implement , and will offer a great solution for people who want to preview their mails on a smaller width... You expect anyone to support that? After all you are one of the very few persons who wants to view their mail wider than it was originally sent. It would be more useful instead to have a general reflow incoming messages feature (a bit like the Outlook feature remove unnecessary linebreaks on incoming plain text messages) instead of hilarious fake panels to adjust the view width... -- Best regards, Alexander (http://www.neurowerx.de - ICQ 238153981) The real art of conversation is not only to say the right thing at the right time, but also to leave unsaid the wrong thing at the tempting moment. Current version is 3.71.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: MicroEd vs Plain text
Hi, ,- - [ Le mercredi 22 mars 2006 vers 22:50 Alexander S. Kunz écrivait: ] - - | OK, does this suit you better. I've temporarily switched to MicroEd to see how things go for a few days. I've no doubt that you'll notice if I switch back. How does it look at your end now I've switched? Much better - the text is nicely wrapped now. That's only a matter of taste, for me, your text is wrapped too small, your message only use 1/4 of the width of my screen, leaving 75% of unused white space (in fact gray, i do not like white background to read emails, especialy when 75% of the width is unused and filled by the background :))... It's something i never understood : why the width of the display should be defined by the writer of a mail and not by the recipient ? the writer cannot know wich screen the recipient would use, resulting most of the time in a wrongly defined wrap width... When a mail is not hardwrapped, as the reader, if i want to read the mail with 76 columns, i just ask it to my mail reader program, but if i want to use a bigger or a smaller width i still can... when the mail is hard wrapped i cannot, the writer choosed for me the width i *must* use. Much more : try to read a hardwrapped mail (76 columns) on a 70 columns screen, it's a real pain (yes : i read sometimes my emails on a pda, with less than 76 columns width). I respect the rules of the list, thus i've also hardwrapped this mail, but can someone tell me if it's possible with TheBat to use a different wrapping settings depending of the folder or the recipient ? I would like when i compose a mail for some lists to use a fixed wrapping at 76 with microed, and for other lists allowing softwrap the windows editor without hardwrap ? | `- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Best regards... _ (_' L'informatique est ma passion, vous la simplifier, mon métier ! ,_)téphane Bouvard [antarex AT freenet DOT be] http://www.antarex.be Current version is 3.71.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: MicroEd vs Plain text
Hello Stephane Bouvard [ML] everyone else, on 25-Mrz-2006 at 10:50 you (Stephane Bouvard [ML]) wrote: That's only a matter of taste, for me, your text is wrapped too small, your message only use 1/4 of the width of my screen, leaving 75% of unused white space (in fact gray, i do not like white background to read emails, especialy when 75% of the width is unused and filled by the background :))... Well, it is commonly acknowledged that articles are easier to read and comprehend if the text is not too wide. Thats why text in technical and scientific magazines is divided into multiple columns per page. It's something i never understood : why the width of the display should be defined by the writer of a mail and not by the recipient ? I couldn't agree with you more, but as long as there's no complete conception and intergration of... Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; delsp=yes ...throughout the world, we're not going to see that any time soon. Besides that, how would one keep apart when and if a hard wrap is intended, and when it was only auto-inserted by the client? In plain text, a CR/LF combination is a CR/LF combination is a CR/LF combination. This would require the wordprocessor style of paragraph formatting, but you can't preserve compatibility with older/other clients that way. In plain text, paragraphs are divided by two CR/LFs. A single CR/LF is just a linebreak. In a word processor, there are no linebreaks. Paragraphs are divided by a single CR/LF. Now, it shouldn't be hard to implement a tiny little conversion routing to remove single CR/LFs so that text can be reflowed, and convert double CR/LFs so that they become paragraph dividers, but still... I could intently add a linebreak here because I want to format some text, a list, whatever, and I certainly wouldn't expect the CR/LF to be removed by a reading program... ...because the whole idea of this formatting may get lost. And there will always be people why format message just how they want to. They're free to do so, and thats a good thing. When a mail is not hardwrapped, as the reader, if i want to read the mail with 76 columns, i just ask it to my mail reader program, but if i want to use a bigger or a smaller width i still can... when the mail is hard wrapped i cannot, the writer choosed for me the width i *must* use. You can use Microsoft Outlook and configure it to remove extra linebreaks and spaces from plaintext messages. Et voila, the message is just as wide as you wish. ;-) Much more : try to read a hardwrapped mail (76 columns) on a 70 columns screen, it's a real pain (yes : i read sometimes my emails on a pda, with less than 76 columns width). And the PDA mailreader does not have the simple mechanism to remove single CR/LF combinations and re-flow the message text for you? Poorly programmed, I'd say. :-P I respect the rules of the list, thus i've also hardwrapped this mail, but can someone tell me if it's possible with TheBat to use a different wrapping settings depending of the folder or the recipient ? I would like when i compose a mail for some lists to use a fixed wrapping at 76 with microed, and for other lists allowing softwrap the windows editor without hardwrap ? You could change the editor from MicroEd to WinEd within templates for a specific group/recipient/etc. %SETEDITOR=1 for MicroEd editor %SETEDITOR=2 for Windows editor %SETEDITOR=3 for HTML and Plaintext %SETEDITOR=4 for HTML only -- Best regards, Alexander (http://www.neurowerx.de - ICQ 238153981) I don't believe in God, because I don't believe in Mother Goose. -- Clarence Darrow Current version is 3.71.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: MicroEd vs Plain text
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
***^\ ._)~~
~( __ _o Was another beautiful day, Sat, 25 Mar 2006,
@ @ at 10:50:33 +0100, when Stephane Bouvard [ML] wrote:
Much better - the text is nicely wrapped now.
That's only a matter of taste, for me, your text is wrapped too small,
your message only use 1/4 of the width of my screen, leaving 75% of
unused white space (in fact gray, i do not like white background to
read emails, especialy when 75% of the width is unused and filled by
the background :))...
It's very easy to overcome this agoraphobic feeling simply by filling up
the unused space with something else, or using a large, or extra large,
fonts.
It also might be a matter of just a taste, yes, exactly this. I, for
instance, prefer very few pieces of furniture in rooms, for I love to
feel the space, and to use it myself. Aside that I love, sometimes, to
ride my roller-skates. And so...if I'd had all this space loaded from
wall to wall, I could only rip my shirt and possibly the rest if any up
and scream. For me it would be an experience of an ultimate
distastefulness, and this would be my usual, aesthetic and kinesthetic,
reaction.
It's something i never understood : why the width of the display
should be defined by the writer of a mail and not by the recipient ?
the writer cannot know wich screen the recipient would use, resulting
most of the time in a wrongly defined wrap width...
If Shakespeare would hang around live, he would, I recon, give you a
better answer. I, though, can offer just this one: The writer _never_
knows what kind of a mind his work will encounter and enter.[1] If he
would know this in advance he would only rip his shirt and possibly the
rest if any up and scream.
That's why people have invented margins.
When a mail is not hardwrapped, as the reader, if i want to read the
mail with 76 columns, i just ask it to my mail reader program, but if
i want to use a bigger or a smaller width i still can... when the mail
is hard wrapped i cannot, the writer choosed for me the width i *must*
use.
Yes. He does so because the matter of formatting is not always just a
matter of taste, be it good or bad.
Much more : try to read a hardwrapped mail (76 columns) on a 70
columns screen, it's a real pain (yes : i read sometimes my emails on
a pda, with less than 76 columns width).
Pain is sometimes good, for it's teaching us what we need to learn, if
we otherwise are {not prone|prune} to. (-;
[1] Monsieur Comte Donatien Alphonse Francois de Sade explains it
excellently somewhere in Quills.
- --
Mica
PGP keys nestled at: http://blueness.port5.com/pgpkeys/
[Earth LOG: 570 day(s) since v3.0 unleashing]
OSs: Windows 98 SE Micro Lite Professional IVa Enterprise Millennium
Windows XP(ee) Micro Lite Professional 1.6, and, for TB sometimes,
Gentoo and Vector Linuxes via Wine...
~~~ For personal mail please use my address as it is *exactly* given
in my From|Reply To field(s). ~~~
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
iQEVAwUBRCVQC7SpHvHEUtv8AQN0lgf/Z8fUko4RQTEHI98XAlhGiVSqKzjk++8h
QH6qgIItmRe0ug8a2xG/tj1bhbDftt1MXClhyCOiPDx0XT0D20i54HmelZWehQxo
+XCTP/sbqT+ak5BYmqv0V6GdSQoghIQjgs57WJq5rh4tWl5lRr34y24LrN4y62ys
61BM0CR0LQO0hGu4U/QFY/eTJ7JX7/1HnMPe28KkusWnWcdqV6M3D6M0c3ezUman
Jg26qDec62J/3Zuhfv3Tm2jIaaH6MOUHAKQn6Q3E4RlMnpa05P5XzDLP86kRyL6n
JNRtmpvnLcjLuuKYHdR33q5dqDRIJqLqACzJ1OpouRu3VYGHjDSfuA==
=7R2G
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
Current version is 3.71.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: MicroEd vs Plain text
Hi, ,- - [ Le samedi 25 mars 2006 vers 13:43 Alexander S. Kunz écrivait: ] - - | Well, it is commonly acknowledged that articles are easier to read and comprehend if the text is not too wide. Thats why text in technical and scientific magazines is divided into multiple columns per page. Technical and scientific (and many other) magazines is divided into multiple columns first because you can insert more text on the same page (you loose less surface between paragraphs,...), and thus cost less to print :) Some people find it easier to read when the text is not too wide, that's why when there is no hardwrap the reader have always the choice to display the mail in a small width... i like when people have the choice to do how they want... But some people prefer have a look of the whole mail on only one screen, with as much information as possible on the same screen, and thus with wider lines, it's my case... unfortunately, when the writer used hardwrap, the reader *cannot* choose anything else and cannot read the mail how they want... I understand of course that sometime the writer *want* that the reader cannot choose another formating that the one the writer choosed, but honnestly, most of the time the writer just writed text with no particular formatting and just hope that someone will read it, did'nt you think they have more chance to be read if the reader is able to use a formatting they like ? Besides that, how would one keep apart when and if a hard wrap is intended, and when it was only auto-inserted by the client? In plain text, a CR/LF combination is a CR/LF combination is a CR/LF combination. This would require the wordprocessor style of paragraph formatting, but you can't preserve compatibility with older/other clients that way. No, i do not want a wordprocessor paragraph formatting : emails are just text, and does not contain any special formatting like space between paragraphs,... When the writer of a mail *want* to begin text on another line, they insert one CR/LF, when they want to separate two paragraphs, they insert two CR/LF (or more), but when they do not want specificaly to continue on another line, they do insert nothing... In plain text, paragraphs are divided by two CR/LFs. A single CR/LF is just a linebreak. I do not want to change that... i want to remove hardwrap, not linebreak But you point exactly the problem : hardwrap and linebreak use the same CR/LF sequence, that's why i do not like hardwrap. In a word processor, there are no linebreaks. You also have linebreaks in a word processor (msword = CTRL-ENTER). But i do not want a wordprocessor behavior, i do not want to just use one CR/LF between two paragraphs, in a mail for me there is always two CR/LF for that purpose, and one CR/LF for a linebreak... the only thing i do not like is to impose a CR/LF every 76 chars even when there is no linebreak... Paragraphs are divided by a single CR/LF. Now, it shouldn't be hard to implement a tiny little conversion routing to remove single CR/LFs so that text can be reflowed, and convert double CR/LFs so that they become paragraph dividers, but still... Again, i do not want this behavior... I could intently add a linebreak here because I want to format some text, a list, whatever, and I Exactly, and you still can, even with no hardwrap. wrap is not equal to linebreak ! And there will always be people why format message just how they want to. They're free to do so, and thats a good thing. Absolutly, it's exactly what i want : that people remains free to format their mail how they want when they compose it, and that when the writer do not want a specific formatting that the reader remain free also to read the mail with their own formatting. It's exactly what happen when you do not use hardwrapping... When a mail is not hardwrapped, as the reader, if i want to read the mail with 76 columns, i just ask it to my mail reader program, but if i want to use a bigger or a smaller width i still can... when the mail is hard wrapped i cannot, the writer choosed for me the width i *must* use. You can use Microsoft Outlook and configure it to remove extra linebreaks and spaces from plaintext messages. Et voila, the message is just as wide as you wish. ;-) No, as you said, that will mess any linebreak, it's technicaly not possible to disting hardwrap CR/LF from linebreak CR/LF. And the PDA mailreader does not have the simple mechanism to remove single CR/LF combinations and re-flow the message text for you? Poorly programmed, I'd say. :-P Again, it's technicaly not possible to disting linebreak from hardwrap... I respect the rules of the list, thus i've also hardwrapped this mail, but can someone tell me if it's possible with TheBat to use a different wrapping settings depending of the folder or the recipient ? I would like when i compose a mail for some lists to use a fixed wrapping at 76 with microed
Re: MicroEd vs Plain text
Hello Stephane Bouvard [ML] everyone else, on 25-Mrz-2006 at 17:38 you (Stephane Bouvard [ML]) wrote: Well, it is commonly acknowledged that articles are easier to read and comprehend if the text is not too wide. Thats why text in technical and scientific magazines is divided into multiple columns per page. Technical and scientific (and many other) magazines is divided into multiple columns first because you can insert more text on the same page (you loose less surface between paragraphs,...), and thus cost less to print :) http://www.webaim.org/techniques/textlayout/ http://psychology.wichita.edu/surl/usabilitynews/72/columns.htm Depends on what significant is in this context, but I found it quite interesting. that's why when there is no hardwrap the reader have always the choice to display the mail in a small width... i like when people have the choice to do how they want... I do not disagree with you. However, this would require that every email client only inserts CR/LF when the user explicitely says so - otherwise you don't have a choice. You can't force all the world to do that for you. Talking about TheBat, only a small fraction of its users is using WinEd (which would do what you want, but its miserable handling quotes for example). And if the client on the receiving side should fix this for you, it'll fail, because, as I already said, a CR/LF is a CR/LF is... No, i do not want a wordprocessor paragraph formatting : emails are just text, and does not contain any special formatting like space between paragraphs,... When the writer of a mail *want* to begin text on another line, they insert one CR/LF, when they want to separate two paragraphs, they insert two CR/LF (or more), but when they do not want specificaly to continue on another line, they do insert nothing... Thats what TBs WinEd does, so go ahead and use it! ;-) Exactly, and you still can, even with no hardwrap. wrap is not equal to linebreak ! Reality bites. In plain text email messages, it is: No, as you said, that will mess any linebreak, it's technicaly not possible to disting hardwrap CR/LF from linebreak CR/LF. And the PDA mailreader does not have the simple mechanism to remove single CR/LF combinations and re-flow the message text for you? Poorly programmed, I'd say. :-P Again, it's technicaly not possible to disting linebreak from hardwrap... For a small screen device like a PDA, I could live with that limitation. It depends on the situation. But how can you change the Wrap text at settings within template ? You don't need to. Switch to WinEd. It wraps only on screen, not in the actual message that is sent. -- Best regards, Alexander (http://www.neurowerx.de - ICQ 238153981) A cookie store is a bad idea. Besides, the market research reports say America likes crispy cookies, not soft and chewy cookies like you make. -- Response to Debbi Fields' idea of starting Mrs. Fields' Cookies. Current version is 3.71.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: MicroEd vs Plain text
Hi, ,- - [ Le samedi 25 mars 2006 vers 18:53 Alexander S. Kunz écrivait: ] - - | that's why when there is no hardwrap the reader have always the choice to display the mail in a small width... i like when people have the choice to do how they want... I do not disagree with you. However, this would require that every email client only inserts CR/LF when the user explicitely says so - otherwise you don't have a choice. The fact that some email client automaticaly insert CR/LF to linewrap (=hardwrap) does not force other email client to do the same, email clients able to read mails without hardwrap are also able to read emails with, the only thing important is to know if every email client is able to read emails without hardwrap, and if yes, why is it encouraged to use hardwrap. You can't force all the world to do that for you. Talking about TheBat, only a small fraction of its users is using WinEd (which would do what you want, but its miserable handling quotes for example). The fact that some people cannot write messages without hardwrap does not mean that everyone should, the only point is to know if there is people who cannot read messages without hardwrap... No, i do not want a wordprocessor paragraph formatting : emails are just text, and does not contain any special formatting like space between paragraphs,... When the writer of a mail *want* to begin text on another line, they insert one CR/LF, when they want to separate two paragraphs, they insert two CR/LF (or more), but when they do not want specificaly to continue on another line, they do insert nothing... Thats what TBs WinEd does, so go ahead and use it! ;-) I use it, my question is : why is it forbidded on some lists and sometimes even discouraged ? And the PDA mailreader does not have the simple mechanism to remove single CR/LF combinations and re-flow the message text for you? Poorly programmed, I'd say. :-P Again, it's technicaly not possible to disting linebreak from hardwrap... For a small screen device like a PDA, I could live with that limitation. It depends on the situation. I can live with it if i need to, i just do not understand why it's the recommended way to do when there are another way much more compatible with every screen and user wish... But how can you change the Wrap text at settings within template ? You don't need to. Switch to WinEd. It wraps only on screen, not in the actual message that is sent. Yes i need to because i do not want to wrap on screen nope, i like to write like i read : using the whole size of my screen. If i set Wrap text at to 76, WinEd do wrap my text on my screen (even if it do not add CR/LF) at the 76th chars, to avoid that and use the whole size of the editor window, i must set the wrap text at to a really big value (the maximum, 32000). To use WinEd like i want, i must set Wrap text at 32000, but to respect the rules of some list, i need to use MicroEd with Wrap text at 76, it would be great to define that in the template, so i can use my prefered settings most of the time, but enable hardwrap when i write to a list requesting it... | `- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Best regards... _ (_' L'informatique est ma passion, vous la simplifier, mon métier ! ,_)téphane Bouvard [antarex AT freenet DOT be] http://www.antarex.be Current version is 3.71.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: MicroEd vs Plain text
Hello Stephane Bouvard (ML) everyone else, on 25-Mrz-2006 at 19:26 you (Stephane Bouvard (ML)) wrote: Thats what TBs WinEd does, so go ahead and use it! ;-) I use it, my question is : why is it forbidded on some lists and sometimes even discouraged ? Forbidden: I don't know, I don't know any list that forbids it (or did I miss that in the TBUDL list). Discouraged: readability, we've been thru that already. :-) I can live with it if i need to, i just do not understand why it's the recommended way to do when there are another way much more compatible with every screen and user wish... I dare say that it is very much a compatibility issue, even today... :-( But how can you change the Wrap text at settings within template ? You don't need to. Switch to WinEd. It wraps only on screen, not in the actual message that is sent. Yes i need to because i do not want to wrap on screen nope, i like to write like i read : using the whole size of my screen. I understand now. I don't know a way around this, sorry. -- Best regards, Alexander (http://www.neurowerx.de - ICQ 238153981) It is better to have tried and failed than to have failed to try, but the result's the same. -- Mike Dennison Current version is 3.71.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: MicroEd vs Plain text
On 25/3/2006 at 11:38:55 AM [GMT -0500], Stephane Bouvard [Ml] wrote: Technical and scientific (and many other) magazines is divided into multiple columns first because you can insert more text on the same page (you loose less surface between paragraphs,...), and thus cost less to print :) Are you sure about this? AFAIK, there's evidence based on observational studies that wrapped text at about 72-76 characters are more easily read and understood by most. I guess there will be the exceptions. -- -= Curtis =- The Bat! v3.72.04 (Beta) / http://specs.aimlink.name PGPKey: http://rsakey.aimlink.name ...Pentiums melt in your PC, not in your hand. pgp4vku0yv7bD.pgp Description: PGP signature Current version is 3.71.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: MicroEd vs Plain text
Mica Mijatovic: @ @ at 21:17:31 +, when Paul Meathrel wrote: OK, does this suit you better. I've temporarily switched to MicroEd to see how things go for a few days. I've no doubt that you'll notice if I switch back. How does it look at your end now I've switched? Beautiful. A holiday for eyes. I agree. An old question of mine, never answered clearly: is it true that it's theoretically impossible to program an editor that - to a user's *eyes and fingers* - has all the MicroEd features plus the ability to consider a *single* carriage return as a paragraph separator? -- Luca - e-mail: p.stevens at libero.it Current version is 3.71.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: MicroEd vs Plain text
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: RIPEMD160 ***^\ ._)~~ ~( __ _o Was another beautiful day, Fri, 24 Mar 2006, @ @ at 09:43:35 +0100, when Luca wrote: An old question of mine, never answered clearly: is it true that it's theoretically impossible to program an editor that - to a user's *eyes and fingers* - has all the MicroEd features plus the ability to consider a *single* carriage return as a paragraph separator? I think it would be possible only if a such editor could work in two modes, and that such, less or more, editors already exist, but not for Windows. There is an old one for DOS, can't recall its name but could find out if you are interested, and more than one for Linux. - -- Mica PGP keys nestled at: http://blueness.port5.com/pgpkeys/ [Earth LOG: 569 day(s) since v3.0 unleashing] OSs: Windows 98 SE Micro Lite Professional IVa Enterprise Millennium Windows XP(ee) Micro Lite Professional 1.6, and, for TB sometimes, Gentoo and Vector Linuxes via Wine... ~~~ For personal mail please use my address as it is *exactly* given in my From|Reply To field(s). ~~~ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iQEVAwUBRCPbErSpHvHEUtv8AQPVVwgArqNgfM3ZUYGYmdLn+MWJ5EeGfMPOIN+Z d82e0RePM+vmygzfVfDrgCscJZzX2lxU/9iW41QT9paeHt+HgX5q2aHoqWUQaLOI TN+eOU5dupdgo7gkOXHKWQXHnoaVMNldapL3zCBCEm2lEIeth8y9QkDbv2WJezgn 4VCwXNSAK+T010yIljprVbt3FIbPhRWwe1zmwWRUqVBEOgMforrbERsO8S0NjpQb +tiVOIvjH1z3mebCg4v/egv28hpvmLBiJIZytbqYMFB4z2Atw6Gyg9904HLRyRD2 bc+t2UMwJYSFKoE/pFopevOpplhavfH4GquICLrNzSSp7zQ+0NSPDQ== =4hOA -END PGP SIGNATURE- Current version is 3.71.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: MicroEd vs Plain text
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: RIPEMD160 ***^\ ._)~~ ~( __ _o Was another beautiful day, Thu, 23 Mar 2006, @ @ at 21:56:52 +, when Paul Meathrel wrote: As for the Windows' editor in TB, yes, it's just a joke. A delusional son of a someone's night mare offering a mule design for a daily productivity. Delusional or not, it is in TB and IIRC is the default editor. Your mouth is opening and words of truth are coming out. I feel a trifle it's a part of TB's identity crisis in a nervous and indecisive ambivalent wanting to be an Outlook Depress. The carrot is I recon a feverish pressure for popularity, which always was a certain way for ruining what is otherwise irresistibly authentic and powerful, including identity and, of course, the life itself. It brings unrest in heart and dulness in the mind. Sometimes certain spots on clothes too... I've a number of significant difference in how the two work in relation to the spell-checker, which was what started me on trying out MicroEd in the first place. It's always good when we have a choice. Having just the son of a said night mare on disposal would be a real misery. - -- Mica PGP keys nestled at: http://blueness.port5.com/pgpkeys/ [Earth LOG: 569 day(s) since v3.0 unleashing] OSs: Windows 98 SE Micro Lite Professional IVa Enterprise Millennium Windows XP(ee) Micro Lite Professional 1.6, and, for TB sometimes, Gentoo and Vector Linuxes via Wine... ~~~ For personal mail please use my address as it is *exactly* given in my From|Reply To field(s). ~~~ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iQEVAwUBRCP527SpHvHEUtv8AQPLCQgAgwhyGl7tO+xemV0cWhk/gGIFmx6H5Nj+ QTtFKx3tg2NHo5s9IXzyH1VqMSbGg9fLX/TwdcJB4i9D+FNdPMd6iQGeFzZ3G0+t 7iS1+nQgyQZlF6n1UU2o1Dl/OGFktFe1nJA6tGwlaYDs+Y//UHqEPJGOEixf2wvd 2T8FhkDdix/7Dww3SyCNow3TSiK5CjdERKDycDzqxvLprNqxwt3ieiFUodK4mv5C QGY31XVLdPD2wlCNh7D664fPj9NsAVyNgqY1HddebrhE7OFbrcBIDmy/3ZEfmBDz 1FNs8sqjDoAC0u8NlUanhixxSsWEzfX8D+rdlC6SgWO8PNNDuo0pgw== =DMBi -END PGP SIGNATURE- Current version is 3.71.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: MicroEd vs Plain text
Luca @ 3/24/2006 2:43:35 AM MicroEd vs Plain text mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] I agree. An old question of mine, never answered clearly: is it true that it's theoretically impossible to program an editor that - to a user's *eyes and fingers* - has all the MicroEd features plus the ability to consider a *single* carriage return as a paragraph separator? Without a tab to indicate the paragraph break, yes, it would seem very hard. Since all line breaks are hard, that the user pressed return cannot be encoded in the text. The user's pressing of tab could, however. But, MicroEd does not use tab characters; it converts them into spaces. Basically, a line wrap and a new paragraph look identical unless there is a tab or some other paragraph marker. Consequently, the program cannot differentiate between a line wrap and a new paragraph. -- Chris Quoting when replying to this message is good for you and me. Using The Bat! v3.71.03 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 2. Accessing a POP3 mailbox. Everything can be filed under miscellaneous. pgpNJ3EaUEcPL.pgp Description: PGP signature Current version is 3.71.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: MicroEd vs Plain text
Hi Mica, Wednesday, March 22, 2006, 8:21:03 PM, you wrote: As for the Windows' editor in TB, yes, it's just a joke. A delusional son of a someone's night mare offering a mule design for a daily productivity. Delusional or not, it is in TB and IIRC is the default editor. I've a number of significant difference in how the two work in relation to the spell-checker, which was what started me on trying out MicroEd in the first place. -- Warmest regards, Paul Created using TheBat! 3.72.04 (Beta) on Windows XP Current version is 3.71.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
MicroEd vs Plain text
Hi all, Someone suggested that I use MicroEd as my mail editor rather than the Plain text (Windows) editor that I use currently. My main objection to this is that it only appears to use fixed-width fonts which I don't want to get used to unless I have to. So here's the question, what are the benefits of MicroEd as compared with the Plain text editor? -- Warmest regards, Paul Created using TheBat! 3.72.04 (Beta) on Windows XP Current version is 3.71.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: MicroEd vs Plain text
Hello Paul Meathrel everyone else, on 22-Mrz-2006 at 19:02 you (Paul Meathrel) wrote: So here's the question, what are the benefits of MicroEd as compared with the Plain text editor? For me its the (auto)formatting options and the hard wrapping at the column I specify. WinEd just wraps on-screen, but not in the actually sent message. Your original message is just one single very long line which appears as three lines in my preview window - I find that rather hard to read. I only have auto-wrap enabled and use ALT+L on the quotes and my own text to format it nicely. -- Best regards, Alexander (http://www.neurowerx.de - ICQ 238153981) I have yet to see any problem, however complicated, which, when looked at in the right way, did not become still more complicated. -- Poul Anderson Current version is 3.71.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: MicroEd vs Plain text
A Bat-fellow, Paul Meathrel, wrote in mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] on Wednesday, 22nd March 2006 at 18:02:30 (GMT), which was 19:02 in Bratislava -- So here's the question, what are the benefits of MicroEd as compared with the Plain text editor? In one word, wysiwyg. Using MicroEd, you're guaranteed that what you see on your screen as you type your message, will be delivered looking exactly the same to all recipients of your message, irrespectively of what software they use for reading their email. This is a dream come true that can never come true in web design, for example. No matter if you adhere to all standards or not, not everyone will see your webpage in exactly the way you want them to see it. In contrast, when composing a message in The Bat's MicroEd editor, you can be sure it will be displayed for all of your recipients in exactly the same way you're composing it. -- Yours, Alex. of Slovakia www.avenarius.sk [flying with The Bat! 3.65.01 under Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 2 amd athlon 2400 mhz 704 mb ram] Current version is 3.71.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: MicroEd vs Plain text
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: RIPEMD160 ***^\ ._)~~ ~( __ _o Was another beautiful day, Wed, 22 Mar 2006, @ @ at 18:02:30 +, when Paul Meathrel wrote: Someone suggested that I use MicroEd as my mail editor rather than the Plain text (Windows) editor that I use currently. My main objection to this is that it only appears to use fixed-width fonts which I don't want to get used to unless I have to. So here's the question, what are the benefits of MicroEd as compared with the Plain text editor? It has much more options for text formatting. The best way to become familiar with the differences is to use them both for a while. I was using Windows' one for a minute or two. It's not that I was lazy or shallow, but because options I had to learn about. It's like a kid toy with acceleration and breaks. No anything else. - -- Mica PGP keys nestled at: http://blueness.port5.com/pgpkeys/ [Earth LOG: 567 day(s) since v3.0 unleashing] OSs: Windows 98 SE Micro Lite Professional IVa Enterprise Millennium Windows XP(ee) Micro Lite Professional 1.6, and, for TB sometimes, Gentoo and Vector Linuxes via Wine... ~~~ For personal mail please use my address as it is *exactly* given in my From|Reply To field(s). ~~~ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iQEVAwUBRCGgjLSpHvHEUtv8AQNIrAf/ZVbQ2hHOhH+NBOOOHnQJteWQ1M+WoCoG Ep27Lh/wHyCfzKvPEOBim6vmcvxFY+SCfQ6tJ1supu+xMmZmaIKQVDmk2dbKgD6g kck/sYJ/DK9mpWbDghnm7JwPWOJbHqrKw07FTaIyYvD7JQaAYDsvNBSYoVMwR7Cb NfcSp597DvEW0hls5A8m9+eYAZ0SiekXxs2QXSqGIPzIStoRc5ddv/hq/u8acEsc /sXGjk5ee0bJZ9i5/8HWYHrMzqpPMSv44YnAIqxVV+5GxB8/a/Ts4igfuk5K/EEE AjjLvGU5mMIfgmacbcV2zj/DoNhe1EibP5P1b49TUFCerEs0F1u46g== =KFKB -END PGP SIGNATURE- Current version is 3.71.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: MicroEd vs Plain text
[EMAIL PROTECTED] @ 3/22/2006 1:00:40 PM MicroEd vs Plain text mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] In one word, wysiwyg. Using MicroEd, you're guaranteed that what you see on your screen as you type your message, will be delivered looking exactly the same to all recipients of your message, irrespectively of what software they use for reading their email. Which can be a double edged sword. With a hard-wrapped message, if I don't have the resolution to display a full line, I have to scroll left-to-right. With a flowed message, it will wrap to my window size. However, when I have too much resolution, it will still wrap to the window size, make the message hard to read. It would be nice if the display algorithm wrapped to the window size or the user's specified number of columns, whichever is smaller. This is a dream come true that can never come true in web design, for example. No matter if you adhere to all standards or not, not everyone will see your webpage in exactly the way you want them to see it. Again, a double-edged sword. There have been many times I have used Opera's display override function. Personally, I don't like reading yellow text on a white background... :-) I'll summarize my diatribe about the web: it's not a print media, so fixed positioning doesn't make any sense. Stuff flows. Deal with it! Don't design you pages like brochures (because they're not). -- Chris Quoting when replying to this message is good for you and me. Using The Bat! v3.71.03 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 2. Accessing a POP3 mailbox. In a Nonsmoking Area: If we see smoking we will assume you are on fire and take appropriate action. pgpqthWHMPvdW.pgp Description: PGP signature Current version is 3.71.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: MicroEd vs Plain text
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: RIPEMD160 ***^\ ._)~~ ~( __ _o Was another beautiful day, Wed, 22 Mar 2006, @ @ at 20:00:40 +0100, when [EMAIL PROTECTED] explained advantages of TB's wsygfdjjkfd MicroEd(itor): This is a dream come true that can never come true in web design, for example. No matter if you adhere to all standards or not, not everyone will see your webpage in exactly the way you want them to see it. It's possible if is used pre/preformatted text with avoidance of glam(e)orousness. Simple, elegant shapes/colors/elements do not leave much room for different interpretations.[1] Fixed width tables (with no visible borders) filled by a text of strictly defined fonts (by the type and size) would give same results. And so on, there are various tricks. As for the Windows' editor in TB, yes, it's just a joke. A delusional son of a someone's night mare offering a mule design for a daily productivity. [1] It's like if you would interpret very expert content using ordinary colloquial words. It's quite possible and quite efficient. The rendering web machines, coming from different technologies, are like people coming from various cultures: they will communicate successfully only what they have in common. This what is common is then a standard, for a such communication. - -- Mica PGP keys nestled at: http://blueness.port5.com/pgpkeys/ [Earth LOG: 567 day(s) since v3.0 unleashing] OSs: Windows 98 SE Micro Lite Professional IVa Enterprise Millennium Windows XP(ee) Micro Lite Professional 1.6, and, for TB sometimes, Gentoo and Vector Linuxes via Wine... ~~~ For personal mail please use my address as it is *exactly* given in my From|Reply To field(s). ~~~ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iQEVAwUBRCGxrrSpHvHEUtv8AQPE1Af+I+zZB7wYVY0p5Vfm7dOUQ2zPlHa6S/3n hOBXZiCNEaHxeFdGsgeMUY81YUQOX4mVwIL2KhQ/uzOth7U54LMx211atvVsSjfJ fKnMrQyhw04f95FVyNLIer7qqNerbiO66a9lKatIV8aeFVJytrjOWEz72Ty/5c/h dvUJNXrtSZZwYKoc+Nk6SSLzdr/AbXDl/j9tAJtcHGqT5ClYjki9A8+Lw20K6cCu tDwgVe8LKtSBpFS3ocEGNUaEhCYQRnzN+xO0nIT6sRU/cmb+7mCA9otBUwWVZhZc jzXVCdUqoohwDGKgHH9EQ8mpaRLj9ZPqiv4B1Gv7POSqr9ADjI7+wA== =TX0w -END PGP SIGNATURE- Current version is 3.71.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: MicroEd vs Plain text
hi, Wednesday, March 22, 2006, 9:00:40 PM, you wrote: when composing a message in The Bat's MicroEd editor, you can be sure it will be displayed for all of your recipients in exactly the same way you're composing it. ...with the condition that they'll view with a fixed-width font and their viewer will scroll (and not autowrap) lines that don't fit its viewarea's width. :) -- regards, vitaliemailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Current version is 3.71.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: MicroEd vs Plain text
Hi Alexander, Wednesday, March 22, 2006, 6:53:06 PM, you wrote: For me its the (auto)formatting options and the hard wrapping at the column I specify. WinEd just wraps on-screen, but not in the actually sent message. Your original message is just one single very long line which appears as three lines in my preview window - I find that rather hard to read. OK, does this suit you better. I've temporarily switched to MicroEd to see how things go for a few days. I've no doubt that you'll notice if I switch back. How does it look at your end now I've switched? I only have auto-wrap enabled and use ALT+L on the quotes and my own text to format it nicely. As far as the Help file goes, it seems to indicate that ALT-L means Align the block on left end. When I try it on your text and on mine it doesn't appear to do anything, what exactly does it do? -- Warmest regards, Paul Created using TheBat! 3.72.04 (Beta) on Windows XP Current version is 3.71.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: MicroEd vs Plain text
Hello Paul, Wednesday, March 22, 2006, 3:17:31 PM, you wrote: PM As far as the Help file goes, it seems to indicate that ALT-L means PM Align the block on left end. When I try it on your text and on mine PM it doesn't appear to do anything, what exactly does it do? Try typing a Paragraph with two lines in it, sort of like this one will be. Then place your cursor in the middle of the first line and type some more info, as if you had forgotten some words. You will notice that your formatting is all messed up, assuming you do not have auto-formatting turned on. Now with the cursor still in the paragraph somewhere hit ALT+L and voila, formatting should be fixed. ALT+J should then Justify it if you so wish. -- Stuartmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Using The Bat! v3.72.02 (Beta) on Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 4 Current version is 3.71.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
