-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 19 Sep 2000 12:20:13 +0100, Deryk Lister wrote:
DL> If you want to see my idea of a really good email editor (although
DL> it's not such a good client) check out AMEOL from www.ameol.com
DL> It's designed for an old conferencing system in the UK called CIX -
DL> some people still use it as a nice moderated alternative to usenet -
DL> but the thing I really like about the client is the message editor.
DL> You know how email is wrapped at 82 characters by standard.
Well, the recommended character limit is 80. But RFC standards state
a range of 60-80 characters that is acceptable. This is a 'should'
standard, not a 'must'. :-)
DL> You know how in TB, whilst you're editing a message it wraps the
DL> words just nicely to fit. However - what if I was to go back to the
DL> above paragraph and add a few words to the first line? In TB, the
DL> line just gets longer than 82 characters and you have to do a manual
DL> ALT-L to put the paragraph back in place.
This is without auto-format enabled.
DL> In AMEOL, there is a solid barrier at 82 characters. No matter how
DL> hard you try, you can't go over it :) It's a system that I really
DL> like - because you know for certain that how an email appears is the
DL> same as how it will be recieved, without pressing any hotkeys.
DL> Everything about that editor is exactly how I think TB's should be.
DL> If you set it up to do so, it will keep all lines at exactly 82
DL> characters long by a more traditional form of wordwrap - if you
DL> finish a line with a long word, it will split the word up between 2
DL> lines with a dash. For exam- ple... like that :)
Try enabling autoformat but *fasten your seatbelt* when you do it
because you may be in for some jolts of surprises. :-)) To help tamper
the anguish, remember that TB!'s editor denotes separate paragrahs by a
blank line. The autoformat will, unrelentingly <g>, without remorse
<vbg>, keep the line length as the user defined. You'll see what I mean.
DL> Having said that, I think it should be an option whether users want
DL> to use fixed-width or proportional fonts - many people use Outlook
DL> anyway so it can't do any harm now to have the option. But I'd
DL> really like to see that "bug" with editing existing lines fixed if
DL> anything...
Yeah, I don't think you should be forced to, but I do encourage using a
fixed width font. It's very practical and sensible when the issues are
examined. The only plus for using a variable width font is a purely
selfish one, ie, visual appeal. When I saw the advantage to using a
fixed width font, I went on the net to find a decent enough looking one
and have.
- --
A. Curtis Martin..
Moderator TBUDL/TBBETA | PGP Key ID: 0xEE079937
PGP Key: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=SendAlliePGPKey
- ---
** "How many of you believe in telekinesis? Raise MY hand! "
________________________________________________________
Using TB! v1.47 Beta/3 «» Win2k Pro SP1
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5.8
Comment: Digitally signed for message and sender verification.
iQA+AwUBOcdUUPAXeSHuB5k3EQJvTwCguvUMsGyv3OIUCem4apnciZsTo9IAmOqj
nG20JlOWiAWZrJbVRdN/HS0=
=ZT0p
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
To send a message to the list moderation team double click here:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--------------------------------------------------------------
You are subscribed as : archive@jab.org
