On Mon, 30 Nov 2015 02:50:40 -0600 <xire.lue...@gmail.com> wrote: > Then fine, set the default as whatever width you like > for symbol wrapping, but should that not be done > client-side? For example, when quoting, won't the > text be pushed out further than that hard-wrap limit? > > Presumably, prior to sending you are still using soft > wrapping and then it adds the hard-wrapping after, > correct? Otherwise you would need to manually > rewrap when adding a word. Why not merely move > this step to the receiver?
Normally, you would have live wrapping and not further wrapping is done. But rewrapping manually when editing is not really a problem. I do that almost daily when I write documentation; it only takes two seconds. The receiver does not always know how to wrap the best way. Consider how it would look if send some code that is wider than the recipients wrapping. Or how badly a patch would be corrupted if wrapping is forced upon it by the client, or the recipient simply does not notice that it is wrapped and the wrapping feature needs to be turned off. (Some people send patches as part of the message rather than as an attachment.) How you ever been displeased with anyone's choice of wrapping column? > > > On 2015-11-30, at 02:22, Timothy Rice > <t.r...@ms.unimelb.edu.au> wrote: > > >> And why is it netiquette to have line breaks instead > >> of line wrapping client-side? > > > > I think someone has just volunteered to submit an RFC > > on how to send electronic mail between computers with a > > multitude of different architectures and screen sizes > > on the internet in the 21st century. > > > > Because, you know, the problem hasn't already been > > dealt with before, and the people who never dealt with > > it in the past have no reason for saying that things > > are best done in a certain way in the present. >
pgpNlmMrSY6un.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
