In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]">mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Marek Jedlinski [MJ] wrote:'
MJ> First post, and I recognize it's going to make me somewhat
MJ> unpopular in the eyes of some, but I would very much like to
MJ> respond.
So, what's popular and what's not around here anyway? :)
MJ> The way TheBat's editor handles linebreaks is seriously broken
MJ> in my opinion.
I beg to differ on this one. :)
I think it's different, though not broken.
MJ> It was the one single issue that kept me from purchasing TheBat
MJ> for years.
Funny, it's one of the things about TB! that makes me such a
faithful user of it. :) It would seem that this editor invokes
strong emotions in both directions.
MJ> In precisely the way other clients do. I'm not talking about
MJ> brain-dead software like Outlook Express; I'm talking about
MJ> *excellent* software such as Forte Agent.
The last time I was using Forte' Agent, with the aid of PowerPro
macros, I was using TB!'s editor to create my news posts. I
preferred using it.
MJ> There is actually very little to distinguish! In all your
MJ> comments, above and below, you're implying that TheBat's
MJ> behavior is somehow standard, whereas all other applications
MJ> behave in ways that deviate from the standard. But please
MJ> recognize that it's TheBat that behaves in a non-standard way.
Yes, it does work in an unusual way that may be uncomfortably
unfamiliar at first, but proves advantageous in the context of
e-mail and formatting.
Soft-wrapping in e-mail can be dangerous. Why? I don't know how many
e-mail viewers you can set to wrap received mail text at 72
characters or whatever character length you wish to as with your
favourite plain text editor. The most your e-mail viewer will do is
to Window wrap.
Soft-wrapping gives the passing user a false sense of security in
that they believe that what they see in front of their screen is
what I'll see on mine. Case in point, someone decides to not set a
wrap length and use window wrapping instead. His window is sized so
that his text wraps at about 80 characters. Things look great on the
senders screen. I now receive his message. I run TB! maximized and
my e-mail viewer can show up to 180 characters per line. His e-mail
spreads across my screen in an unreadable manner. I therefore have
to reduce the window size just to make the lines wrap at a
reasonable length. You tell the sender that his lines are too long.
The sender denies this saying that the lines looked fine at his end
and that you the recipient should fix your application.
Wrapping text on sending is also a bad thing since it's rare for it
to be done without problems. The gymnastics of PGP signing messages
is testimony to this. The same goes for the famous chain messages
with horrid quoted wrapping thanks to reflow on sending done by OE.
Only Forte' Agent seems to get this one right since it does seem to
insert hard line breaks where the soft line breaks are when you've
finished typing. So it doesn't really reflow text to look different
from what you're seeing before you hit send. Unfortunately, Forte'
Agent will not reflow quoted material. It will not auto-indent and
reflow the auto-indented text as needed. You can't switch between
different selection modes. I don't have a free caret. It's very
difficult to convert repetitive text format routines into macros as
I can with TB!'s editor.
TB! does away with soft-wrapping. The user is therefore always aware
of the formatting the recipient will be looking at when he/she
receives the message. I really appreciate this control.
MJ> Specifically, it inserts a newline character where the user
MJ> didn't. So again, there is nothing to disttinguish.
No need to distinguish, since TB!'s editor doesn't use soft line
feeds. It's just a different approach that really works for e-mail.
If TB! breaks a line, it's a hard line break. ... period.
MJ> The program should simply respect what the user entered.
It does.
MJ> If I want a paragraph break, I'll press Enter. If I don't, I
MJ> don't.
Switch off wrapping then. It will not give you line breaks unless
you enter them. However, no window wrapping since that would
comprise soft line breaks which it doesn't support.
MJ> The client can and should break lines at a predefined length
MJ> when sending, and all modern email clients do so, although it
MJ> isn't really necessary most of the time.
It is necessary in the vast majority of instances, and most modern
clients cause all sorts of annoying problems by reflowing text on
sending. This is one thing I check before using a client. If it
reflows text on sending, in a way that makes me unable to predict
formatting, I don't use it. This is how I came to use Forte' Agent
before TB!.
MJ> Does it have to be the same in appearance? Isn't it much more
MJ> convenient if you can resize the window as you're typing, and
MJ> have the text automatically conform to the new size of the
MJ> window
I guess so, but the resultant problems created by the benefit earned
doesn't balance out in my user-book. :)
MJ> - and so can the recipient?
Most recipients don't wish to have to be resizing their viewer to
read particular messages.
MJ> Isn't it more convenient when, if you add or remove some text
MJ> inside a paragraph, the paragraph stays, rather than being split
MJ> into a bunch of uneven lines?
You can achieve this in TB! by using auto-format mode.
MJ> I'd rather have the confidence of knowing that what I type is
MJ> displayed exactly as I intended.
But this is exactly what TB! does for you.
MJ> I am grateful that Forte Agent lets me type and reformat easily,
MJ> and still sends RFC-conformant messages. In other words, it
MJ> provides the best of both worlds.
... without providing the great text reflow options that TB!
provides. The fact that these reflow options work just as well on
quoted text is even better.
MJ> Simply put, TheBat's editor doesn't have the concept of a
MJ> paragraph. It only has a concept of a line. It doesn't know or
MJ> care where a paragraph begins and ends.
It does. It just denotes it differently. It's any block of text
bounded by empty lines above and below.
If I hit Alt-L within text, only that text bounded by empty lines
above and below it will be wrapped.
MJ> It is excellent in other ways, but on the point under discussion
MJ> TheBat is making a throwback to very old times, and it's not at
MJ> all convenient. I often type lists into messages, such as a) foo
MJ> b) bar c) baz and if I happen to not put a blank line before or
MJ> after the list, and then hit Alt+L to reformat, because I
MJ> entered or deleted some text in the middle, I get this:
This was the part I had to adjust to yes. A worthwhile adjustment
for me in exchange for the other benefits.
MJ> Oh, I think you're just being snide here, sorry. Of course those other
MJ> apps are more capable, because they can do what TheBat does, and they
MJ> can also act otherwise; they give you an option. TheBat, with its
MJ> manual 'format block' command, is more like the line-based editors of
MJ> old. The reason I believe soft-wrapping is good is that it makes the
MJ> computer perform a task that otherwise the user must manually perform.
MJ> Going back and pressing Alt+L is not what I enjoy doing.
Have you tried auto-format.
Again, this one works using the paragraph concept as I mentioned
above. Think of it as a mode where alt-l is auto applied each time
you enter a new character.
I do understand where you're coming from and can understand the
reaction of many towards it's unusual behaviour and approach.
I do disagree with the opinion that TB!'s editor is broken. I
disagree. It's just different.
BTW, Ultra-Edit cannot be made to behave like TB!'s editor. I've
tried. It's behaviour can be made to approximate it. The behaviour
you seem concerned with isn't what interests me with regards to
TB!'s editor.
--
-=] allie_M [=- {List Moderator}
MUA: TB! v1.62 Christmas Edition ___ OS: WinXP Pro (SP1)
________________________________________________
Current version is 1.62 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
