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

Marcus E. Hennecke (marcush@crc.ricoh.com)
Thu, 16 May 1996 09:52:40 -0700


Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 09:52:40 -0700
From: marcush@crc.ricoh.com (Marcus E. Hennecke)
Message-Id: <199605161652.JAA00450@cougar.crc.ricoh.com>
To: www-html@w3.org, boo@best.com
Subject: Re: DIV/CLASS: Mike Wexler: Re: HTML 3.2

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

And for me it shows justified. But I don't think that is relevant at all.
Surely both you and I will find that a small minority of printed text
around us is right justified (ragged left). Nonetheless, HTML 3.2 allows
ALIGN=LEFT. So why not ALIGN=JUSTIFY?

>  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.

But one already has control over alignment. We have already allowed
ALIGN=LEFT, ALIGN=CENTER, and ALIGN=RIGHT.

Marcus
--
Marcus E. Hennecke
marcush@crc.ricoh.com        http://www.crc.ricoh.com/~marcush/