Peter Ouwehand, [PO] wrote: PO> I simply say: let the end-use decide.
It's not so simple in this case. AM>> Be that as it may, one can never hope to please everyone. PO> True, but you might try. Oh yes. I do so by wrapping text to 72 characters, not overquoting, not top posting etc., etc. There are those who prefer top posting, but I still will not top post. There are those who prefer if all the previous message text is quoted. Again, I will not quote all. PO> Let the end-user decide through settings in their email client. PO> Anything wrong with that ?? Not if the flexibility you're referring to is really and truly there. Unfortunately it's not. Even web sites are departing from your model. Check it out. Look at the major news sites and online magazine columns. Are you saying they no longer care about making their readership comfortable. I don't think so. I think they now appreciate that most, myself included, don't size their browser width based on the line length we prefer to read text. The same goes for the message text view window for most clients, TB! included. AM>> When you're writing to a single individual and you do know their AM>> preference, then fine, post to them the way they like. PO> So, what if the end-user changed his/her mind? Is that a practical and real issue that, in most cases, overrides the others I mentioned?? AM>> When posting to a discussion list or when sending e-mail to those whose AM>> preference you aren't familiar with, you're far less likely to create AM>> problems by sending the text wrapped, and an optimum limit has been AM>> defined. PO> All of that is a user-interface question. PO> Either for the sender or receiver. PO> Create options/settings: PO> - send 'long lines' / hard wrap at xx PO> - display 'long lines' / (soft-)wrap at xx/ display as received PO> You should look into the ISO structure, like there is (for instance): PO> - transport PO> - presentation PO> Hence: presentation is up to the user-agant. PO> Ya, this won't adhere to current RFC. PO> Repeating myself: create (a) new one(s). PO> Or: stop discussions about wrapping interpretations, they are subjective. I agree with you in principle. However, the reality is that this sort of ideal control doesn't exist on most computers for reading e-mail. It's therefore best to simply wrap the text. A simple example of this is that TB! doesn't wrap message text being viewed to a specified character limit. It just wraps to the window edge. Except for I think Becky!, I can't think of a client that will wrap received text in the viewer to a specified character limit. If TB! could do this, then TB! users wouldn't have a problem with unwrapped text. I'd just set the viewer to wrap at a particular line length. However, even if this were so, this opens the can of worms where the text is now being wrapped even when it really shouldn't be. IOW's, I may choose to send you text that I would prefer that you see as a long line. Eg. this one. PO> Guess you use a 'full account list at the left side', like I do. Now PO> thats a lame excuse. How is that lame? Why should I change my window size to the detriment of everything else I wish to see just to read your unwrapped text at a particular line length??? Now *that* is a lame thing to be doing. PO> The message list representation has absolutely nothing to do with PO> how the preview of messages below it are presented! Example: try PO> Forte-Agent (news reader) It does have something to do with how I wish to size my TB! main or folder view windows. I'm saying that sizing one's window should have nothing to do with viewing a message at an optimum wrap length. When I open a text file in my text editor, I toggle on wrapping so I can read it at my predefined 72 character setting. I have no such control when reading mail in TB!. Does Eudora have that? I think Becky! does. OE and Outlook don't. The point is that most clients don't. Most have to resize their window when they shouldn't have to be. What about long lines that are intended to be read as such. How are they displayed when the window has been deliberately set to a small size? PO> Uh?? Most problems I see coming along are about: "my page looks good in PO> x by y, but gets a horizontal slider when viewed on lower resolution" (or PO> smaller browser width). PO> I don't agree with your statement. Go to http://www.cnn.com Bring up an article. Do you see it wrapping at your window width? Here's what it looks like at my end. http://www.ac-martin.com/pics/cnn.png I can't imagine reading that article wrapped to my window width. Not to worry, that window width is often used up just fine on other sites. http://www.apple.com is an example. Although my entire browser width is used up. There is no point where you'll see text spanning the browser width. In fact, text blocks are optimally wrapped. I don't know if all this explaining will make you have a change of mind on this issue, but this is the last I'll post on it. I don't think there's much point in saying more on list. We're reaching a point of diminishing returns. I don't think I'm about to change your mind and you're posts are only making me more resolute in my position. :) -- -= allie_M =- | List Moderator PGPKeys: http://www.ac-martin.com/pgpkeys.html ____________________________________ Using TB! v2.01.26 on WinXP Pro (SP1)
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
________________________________________________ Current version is 2.01.3 | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
