On Fri, May 17, 2002 at 08:34:20PM -0700, Paul 'Baloo' Johnson wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Sat, 18 May 2002, Hans Ekbrand wrote:
>
> > Although I actually have a terminal (can't say I use it much though),
> > I sometimes wonder if email conventions should be derived from
> > limitations of such ancient hardware. In some sense, its a good
> > practice to require as little as possible from the clients, but is
> > 80x25 a limit that anyone is facing anymore?
>
> Yes. I'm at work right now on a VT100. People still use old hardware
> and will likely still use old hardware for as long as they can be
> repaired and pressed into service (read: indefinately, terminals are
> pretty damn robust).
I missed this the first time around, but:
I have 3 or 4 machines at home that I may use at any given time to
read Usenet or Email. A PII 233 with 198 meg of ram runing Debian
Woody, a P233 with 128 meg of ram running Redhat something old, a
PowerMac G4 with 768 meg of ram running OSX, and usually something
else, from a Windows laptop to a Tadpole to whatever.
I still have the 80x25 problem, since often I'm using Mutt or SLRN.
It's not your place to decide for me what software or hardware I
must use to read your usenet postings, although it might be
acceptable to place a certain minimal level of ability, however it
most certainly is *NOT* acceptable for you to dictate what my email
software must be able to accomodate beyond the requirements of the
relevant RFC.
Which is still 822, last time I checked.
Now that you've probably gotten all huffy, no, I don't mean "you"
specifically, I mean "you" in the Outlook using, javascript-RTF
enhanced non-RFC compliant email sending twits out there. If you
fall in to that category, then...
> > I guess new limits come with pocket computers, mobile telephones, and
> > whatever means people read their mail with these days.
> Pocket computers gracefully rewrap text (usually) so they're not an
> issue (though it would be nice if the email software that comes with it
> would respect the 72 column rule even if it doesn't display it). I
> don't see anybody reading on thier telephones. I mean, yeah, I'm going
Funny, my Mobile Phone came with Eudora installed on it. I'm waiting
for the USB sync cable so's I can try it out.
> Though one time I got a hold of my roommate's cellphone and subscribed
> him to a few high traffic lists on it. It took him a couple days before
> he realised it wasn't going to stop on it's own and he'd have to go for
> it himself. Nice part about those three days is you couldn't lose him,
> he was beeping every couple minutes. (He got me back by pouring out my
> Molsons and refilling the bottles with Coors, though everybody in the
> house said that was below the belt: You simply don't subject *anyone* to
> American beer[1])
He's a nice guy. I'd have urinated in them. Though with beer it'd be
hard to tell the difference.
> > So, a better argument for wrapping lines at 72 chars would perhaps be
> > that it make the text easier to read (even if you have real screen
> > estate that could handle a lot more).
No, the best argument is that accessability is more important than
form, and there is only one form that is considered a baseline
default--80 columns width max.
> [1] There's a difference between American beer and Oregonian beer,
> though, Widmer Brothers and McMenamins are still good; Henry Weinhards
> used to be good until they sold out to Miller, they're brewed out of St.
> Louis and the formula changed: it tastes like Miller Lite now.
Beer is beer. Budwiser makes more beer because they have bigger
horses, that's all.
--
My last cigarette was roughly 28 days, 16 hours, 10 minutes ago.
YHBW
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
