Re: DIV/CLASS: Mike Wexler: Re: HTML 3.2

Abigail (abigail@tungsten.gn.iaf.nl)
Thu, 16 May 1996 17:48:32 +0200 (MET DST)


From: Abigail <abigail@tungsten.gn.iaf.nl>
Message-Id: <199605161548.RAA15886@tungsten.gn.iaf.nl>
Subject: Re: DIV/CLASS: Mike Wexler: Re: HTML 3.2
To: www-html@w3.org
Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 17:48:32 +0200 (MET DST)
In-Reply-To: <v02140b02adc0ef6fcbcf@[205.149.180.135]> from "Walter Ian Kaye" at May 16, 96 07:52:39 am

You, Walter Ian Kaye wrote:
++ 
++ At 9:33a 05/16/96, Dave Raggett wrote:
++ >> So just because neither Netscape nor Microsoft got around to implementing
++ >> JUSTIFY we don't get it? Somehow this doesn't strike me as very desirable.
++ >
++ >We will only get browsers with support for text justification if people
++ >are prepared to put in considerable effort and expense into developing
++ >and widely deploying browsers with this feature. To get high quality
++ >results this would have to be combined with hyphenation. I expect that
++ >this will come eventually, but it is certainly not viewed as the highest
++ >priority for vendors I have spoken with at this point.
++ 
++ Besides, it's generally known that justified text is harder to read than
++ raggett-..er, ragged right. ;)

That explains that most books and packages like (La)TeX use justified
text. Justified text might be harder to read when using non-strechable
spaces, but I doubt it's true when using strechable spaces (combined
with hyphenation).


Abigail


-- 
<URL: http://www.edbo.com/abigail/>