21 Jun
2004
21 Jun
'04
8:45 p.m.
Alain Knaff wrote:
My intention is not to discourage people to use Outlook Express, I am
just explaining that people using Outlook Express will have problems
when replying to messages written in "flowed mode". :)
Friendly,
Bob Hentges
--
http://bob.hentges.lu/
begin Monday 21 June 2004 18:15, Bob Hentges quote:
Yes, and that is exactly where flowed text messages come in handy.
Actually I am using text format flowed right at the moment. And IMO it
has numerous advantages. Look, if you are using a client who doesn't
understand "flowed" the mail will be displayed just normally. That means
the line break after the 72nd char will be used. But, if a client knows
how to "work" with flowed, it will display the text in a normal way,
which means, without a line break after the 72nd char.
So far, the only real disadvantage I see is that there is a whitespace
before every end of line. But isn't that an acceptable "problem" if
mails can be read a whole lot easier.
Howdy all,
I was just wondering what you people think of witting messages in text
format = flowed to mailing lists - instead of the commonly used line
break at char 72 or wherever.
An overlong line by any other name is still an overlong line (if that
is what you mean by "text format flowed") ;-)
Accepted netiquette is indeed to keep line length under 80 characters
(or even 72, in order to leave room for quote characters, in case your
message is replied to). Most online netiquette guides seem to agree on
this:
<snip> I am conscious
that basically a whitespace
at EOL is bad(TM), and the the evil OE aka Outlook Express will not
quote correctly when replying to a message written in flowed mode - but
still...
If the goal is to discourage people to use Outlook Express, there are
other methods than using long lines. One idea, for instance is to use
the word "begin" followed by two spaces at the start of a line ;-)