On Fri, Nov 23, 2012, at 08:22 PM, Jim Graham wrote: > Ok, but if variable width is such a good thing, using the twisted logic > that's been posted in this thread, every possible environment either > supports it or it's crap...right? So it should even be supported by > Mutt on a VT-100 terminal. Right? Oh, wait, the old VT-100 terminals > do suck. Never mind.
I don't think there's any question in typography circles or in usability circles that proportional fonts are more readable than fixed width fonts. Just think about typeset documents versus typewritten ones. To the extent that older hardware and software don't accomodate proportional fonts, yes, they are limited. You can call that "crap" or say it "sucks" if you prefer. > > But you still haven't answered the other part: how does the MUA or > terminal keep plain test that is meant by the sender to be aligned > as he/she typed it? That was a part of the question that needs an > answer, as it MUST be handled properly or it's broken. So how IS > that done? HTML provides a number of mechanisms for aligning proportional font text. A message using multipart/alternative that uses HTML mechanisms where appropriate, and ASCII character alignment for a text/plain part would serve the largest number of clients, but I haven't seen many email programs that do this correctly. Most often, users will worry about one format and not the other. -pd -- Peter Davis www.techcurmudgeon.com
