From: J.B. Moreno (planb@newsreaders.com)
Date: Wed Apr 03 2002 - 13:03:11 CST
On 4/2/02 11:58 AM, Charles Lindsey at <chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk> wrote:
> "Dan Kohn" <dan@dankohn.com> said...
>> Also, here's a comment on your -06 USEFOR draft:
>>
>> + I would seriously consider referencing RFC 2646 as a SHOULD in section
>> 4.3.2, as it significantly improves the chance for automatic
>> interpretation of multiple quoting blocks.
We've been over this before, and the consensus was not to do so (I argued
for, but I don't think we should bring it up again).
> Ah! The Gelens format=flowed thing. Another bit of protocol that could
> have been done much better with a bit more thought. I am not anxious to
> mention it. The general opinion within Usenet at the moment is that your
> ought to fit into 79 columns if you expect to be widely read.
The format=flowed draft says that you should fit it into <79 columns (72 or
74 IIRC) except when it's one continuous word (i.e. no white space to break
on).
And although I think it would be better if it had something for external
quoting and indenting, it doesn't and it's STILL a lot better than the
current situation (especially when you factor in MS's PC crap which are more
likely to implement it than they are to fix their current blundering).
-- J.B. Moreno