This discussion (unconventionally, quoted below) is very much like any debate over personal preference. It would be quite astonishing if this thread convinced anyone that they were "wrong"! All we can do in the end is to try to best A) understand each other, B) tolerate (celerbrate?) each other's differences, and C) repeat over and over again what WE like knowing if we do it often enough and loudly enough others will understand! ;-p
RG>>> you see things that way then I hope others do too, never wrapping RG>>> prematurely, never too long to be viewed (horizontally) on one RG>>> screen. PO> I agree, the user/reader should decide what the optimum reading width PO> is. MR>> Eek! :-) I've found that in reading email, a wrap setting of between MR>> 70-76 is *very comfortable to read*. Lines much longer than that are MR>> less comfortable...for this reason... And once a bunch of replies are quoted with all those >>>s (and whatever else) they now get too long to wrap and cause lines that wrap at 10 characters making it uncomfortable for me to read and wasting TONS of pqaper everytime I print out an email. (Another pet peeve... One line of text on a page because short line wraps made the message too long PO> I can imagine you have your own preferred 'reading width', everyone has. MR>> Very long lines force our eyes to make longer jumps back and forth MR>> from the end of one line back to the beginning of the next. This can MR>> be especially inconvenient if there are more than just a few lines. MR>> Personally, I prefer a line length of 70 characters, and so that's how MR>> I send all my email (you know...do unto others as I wish they would do MR>> unto me :-)). PO> The preferred width comes from some RFC, as someone else mentioned. PO> Now what if I would like to read a meaasage in a width which doesn't PO> match yours? PO> You (or the RFC) are now forcing me to use a width which you may like, PO> but I may not like. PO> Hence, do not hard-wrap lines. Let the end-user decide what s/he likes. PO> Ya, this means not being compliant to RFCs, create a new RFC, and let PO> the end user decide how s/he wants to see it, depending on the user-agant PO> setting like: wrap at xx, soft wrap at window width, as it has been PO> created, ...something else.. PO> In HTML-lingo it's called liquid design. Wrapping adjusts to the end PO> users' browser width. Here, here!! A new RFC! How do we do that? MR>> If it is your preference to send such "unwrapped" lines, could you MR>> please explain to me your reasoning? In any event, please don't worry MR>> about "wasting" *my* screen real estate by wrapping your lines before MR>> the end of the window...I won't mind in the least (and I'm sure my MR>> computer doesn't care either). :-) PO> See above. It will be up to you to set your preferences. PO> What else can you wish for? I think I wrote earlier I DO NOT "wish to" send long unwrapped lines. I wish to type and press send. I wish every piece of mail I got was perfectly formatted to MY preferences. It won't happen and I will just deal with it as I have been for 20 years. I would love to be able to debate this forever and find a REAL solution eventually but unfortunately I cannot... I will do my best to A) edit comfortably and B) try to send emails that others are comfortable reading. That said, I will continue to use the Windows-style editor that does not wrap quiclky enough for many of you, but hopefully I can set IT to wrap at 72 characters. (Is that possible?) Perhaps I will add an appology to my signature line! THERE! That's THE answer... The ONE true right answer. No one else is right if I just appologize every time!!! -- Rich ________________________________________________ Current version is 2.01.3 | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
