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

Walter Ian Kaye (boo@best.com)
Thu, 16 May 1996 09:43:35 -0700


Message-Id: <v02140b04adc1038082a5@[205.149.180.135]>
Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 09:43:35 -0700
To: www-html@w3.org
From: boo@best.com (Walter Ian Kaye)
Subject: Re: DIV/CLASS: Mike Wexler: Re: HTML 3.2

At 5:48p 05/16/96, Abigail wrote:
>You, Walter Ian Kaye wrote:
>++ 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.

I dunno about most -- a scan of the printed materials in my midst shows
most using ragged-right text. I see justified text only in magazines and in
only two or three of the many sections in the San Jose Mercury News (the
majority of its sections use ragged right). Oh, book-books too -- I was
looking mostly in computer manuals, brochures, ads, etc... <G>

>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).

Well there are indeed many factors, and when you have control over them you
can get away with justified text. But since "we" are trying to keep much of
that stuff out of HTML and in style sheets, I hardly think that justified
text belongs in HTML itself. If one does not have control over typeface,
font size, letterspacing, wordspacing, hyphenation, line length, *and*
line leading, then IMHO it is inappropriate to specify full-justification.

-Walter

__________________________________________________________________________
    Walter Ian Kaye <boo@best.com>     Programmer - Excel, AppleScript,
          Mountain View, CA                         ProTERM, FoxPro, HTML
 http://www.natural-innovations.com/     Musician - Guitarist, Songwriter