* David Young <dyo...@pobox.com> [2012-11-20 14:54]: > On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 09:27:19PM +0100, Holger Weiß wrote: > > * David Young <dyo...@pobox.com> [2012-11-20 11:59]: > > > On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 04:42:13PM +0000, John Long wrote: > > > > Take some responsibility for yourself and your content. Post like a man > > > > not > > > > a webbot. > > > > > > I cannot believe people are still hewing to this old line. It's like > > > thousands of people fell asleep at their teletypes (I mean the kind that > > > printed on paper) in the 1970s and woke up in 2012. > > > > The point is not supporting teletypes (though I do print emails to paper > > quite regularly in 2012), but readability. Extending the line length to > > more than 70 or 80 characters significantly reduces readability. > > Of course the point is not supporting teletypes. But if the point > is readability, why uphold the readability conventions from another > time, medium, and technology like nothing has changed in email content, > volume, or the variety and capabilities of clients?
Because the impact of line length on readability doesn't depend on the email content, volume, or client capabilities. 300-character lines are horrible to read on any medium. Holger
