Hi Oliver,
on Thursday, December 23, 1999, 8:39:57 AM GMT+0800, Oliver Sturm wrote:
OS> I'm against the concept of denying features, too. But a feature is
OS> only a feature in the right place. To say it the hard way: You don't
OS> need variable width fonts to work with a system that has been
OS> functioning with fixed width fonts for what? 20 years? or such.
Right. When I started working at my first employer's office, and one
of the big clients of that company insisted they buy a fax machine,
they said exactly this: "we have been using telex machines for 20 years
without any problems, we really don't need fax".
When Email became the hit in business, my then-boss said, "we have been
using faxes for 20 years, we really don't need email".
While I personally prefer not to use fancy fonts, I don't think you
can stop it by denying variable fonts to users of one small mail
client.
AM>> If variable width font support would be useful for many, implement the
AM>> thing. Just make sure that fixed width font support is maintained.
OS> That's what I'm saying all the time.
I think we all agree now.
OS> I think especially of the people using charsets (some mentioned
OS> that) that don't work properly in fixed width.
Thanks. ;-)
--
Cheers,
Thomas.
Message reply created with The Bat! 1.38e
under Chinese Windows 98 4.10 Build 1998
on a Pentium II/350 MHz.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
To send a message to the list moderation team double click here:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--------------------------------------------------------------
