On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 8:23 PM, Charles E Campbell Jr <[email protected]> wrote: > Tony Mechelynck wrote: >> >> On 04/03/10 16:24, Matt Wozniski wrote: >>> >>> On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 10:17 AM, Patrick Texier wrote: >>>> >>>> On Thu, 04 Mar 2010 09:54:01 -0500, Charles Campbell wrote: >>>> >>>>> Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 >>>>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable >>>> >>>>> let lastline =3D line('$') >>>>> ___________^= >>>>> ____________<br> >>>>> >>>>> &nb= >>>> >>>> Please use Content-Type: text/plain; >>> >>> I think HTML is perfectly acceptable when it conveys extra >>> information... In this case, it would have been hard to see what was >>> modified in the test when viewed in the archives, unless it came in a >>> fixed width font. It's not as though Chip used a garish foreground or >>> background color, or made the text 20 point... >>> >>> ~Matt >>> >> >> Oh no? Ordinary text in bright cyan on black, unvisited hypertext links in >> almost invisible dark blue on black by default, and left-hand quote marks >> also almost invisible (and I'm using the same mailer as he does, though >> probably with more "standard" colour defaults) and you don't call it garish? >> He could at least have left the colours undefined (so the reader's default >> colours would apply) or if that was regarded as inapplicable, set them to >> something more "ordinary" in HTML, such as black foreground and white >> background. (Yeah, I've noticed there are people who raise the hue and cry >> whenever "blinding white" background, as they call it, is used, but white >> [#FFFFFF] is the default background in most GUI browsers if you don't change >> it, so IMHO it ought not to be regarded as "abnormal".) > > Sigh, the only thing that I actively specified was to use a monosized font.
In both the gmail web interface and in the groups.google.com page for the ML, the only noticeable HTML artifact is the monospace font; the colors are all default. I'll admit to having not opened it up in a more traditional mail reader, though - maybe there were some garish colors that I couldn't see. In any event, I certainly don't care enough about this topic to continue on in reviving a months-dead thread, so expect no more from me on the topic. > Not to worry; in the future my response to questions that need monosized > fonts will be "that answer cannot be given in this forum". Maybe you'll be pulled into the #vim on freenode ranks? :-p ~Matt -- You received this message from the "vim_use" maillist. Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php Subscription settings: http://groups.google.com/group/vim_use/subscribe?hl=en
