On Sat, May 18, 2002 at 01:04:19AM +0200, Hans Ekbrand wrote: > On Fri, May 17, 2002 at 03:40:47PM -0700, Vineet Kumar wrote: > > The reason most people > > suggest 72 is that traditionally, terminals are 80 characters wide, and > > 72 leaves enough room to be quoted with "> " four times. > > 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? >
I have seen posts here mentioning hardware as limiting the size of the text, but that's only part of it. > I guess new limits come with pocket computers, mobile telephones, and > whatever means people read their mail with these days. > > 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). > You are right. There is also a greater point of aesthetics involved. If you have dealt in Latex, one of the first things you learn is that lines longer than 76 characters, or thereabouts, are difficult to read. That's why newspaper have columns, since the print is so small. You could probably pick up any paperback novel and see that the number of characters on a line is about 76. I run a 132x60 mode console (vga=10), and I still prefer seeing my email wrapped around at 80 characters, though for coding I often set that limit to 100 characters. Running the console at this resolution helps when I am viewing webpages with a tabular layout using links. -Andy -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]