From: Charles Lindsey (chl@clerew.man.ac.uk)
Date: Thu May 22 2003 - 05:38:31 CDT
In <3ECBA9BB.5090005@Sonietta.blilly.com> Bruce Lilly <blilly@erols.com> writes:
>[now we're getting somewhere]
>Display is a tricky issue for several reasons:
>1. proportional spacing fonts, as mentioned above.
> IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII.IIIIIIIII.IIIIIIIII
> takes less space with such a font than
> WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW.WWWWWWWWW.WWWWWWWWW
>2. Display widths vary. 80 was common for text-based CRT (and printing)
> terminals, though many also supported wider (typically 132) display.
> Now, we have narrow display devices which carry text messages (PDAs,
> cell phones, "pocket" computers, etc.).
I think the general presumption within Usenet is that articles should be
formatted, where possible, so that when displayed using a fixed-pitch font
they fit nicely within 79 characters. There is an expectation that all
reading agents can display such things sensibly (both in headers and
bodies), and people regularly get flamed for exceeding that without good
cause, and also one often sees lines longer that 79 characters that have
been split into alternate long and short lines, and people get flamed for
that too.
However, any detailed discussion of such issues belongs in USEAGE (where
we might even point them in the direction of format=flowed). The most we
might do in USEFOR is an advisory remark that keeping within 79 characters
was a Good Thing.
But at the moment we do not even do that. I have removed all mention of
79 characters from section 4.5 into USEAGE. Perhaps I went too far?
-- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5