- From: Access Systems <accessys@smart.net>
- Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 09:17:49 -0500 (EST)
- To: Harry Woodrow <harrry@email.com>
- Cc: "'David Woolley'" <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>, w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, Harry Woodrow wrote: > > This comes back to the conclusion that there is no actual standard. > I know that 80 characters was the width of an IBM card, but they have > gone the way of the looms they controlled. > 79 was the number of characters that could be displayed on some old > teminals as one had to be kept for the edges, but few people are using > green terminals any more. > The only standard I can find is: the internet email protocols clearly > permit line lengths up to 1000 characters (rfc 821).. > Forcing line breaks prevents the receiver from allowing software to > effectively word wrap the text. For instance I use a screen which could however some web browsers do not automatically word wrap, especially when sending a reply. > display several hundred characters but I use a narrow window for email > which allows effective reading even with an enlarged font size in much > the same way as a newspaper column allows efficient reading. > Keeping to old preferences is probably not a valid reason and if > standards are quoted as the reason others should comply with someone's > preference it seems reasonable to expect that the actual standard does > exist and can be demonstrated. > as you say I don't believe there is any "RULE" per se but common courtesy would dictate a line length that can be used by any browser. Bob > Harry Woodrow > > > -----Original Message----, > From: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org] On > Behalf Of David Woolley > Sent: Wednesday, 3 December 2003 3:59 > To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > Subject: Re: To be or not to be...an alt tag, that is the question > > > > > > What standard refers to 79 characters. > > It dates back to the days when you didn't need to have legal documents > for everything as users and software developers understood certain > things without being told. > > The main standards issue is that a lot of GUI email programs don't make > it clear that when they wrap a displayed line it is an error recovery > behaviour, not a means to produce reflowable paragraphs (I suspect the > authors of such programs don't know that either). In particular, > = at the end of a MIME quoted-printable encoded line means append the > next line without starting a newline; it is not a soft newline. > > For non quoted-printable material, whilst not a standard, the limit > is implicit in the use of = to break up long lines at that sort of > length, and is, I think, explained in the rationale for that standard. > > The actual reccommended length, taken from USENET guideline documents > for > new users (try news:news.announce.newusers), is more like 73 characters, > which allows for a few generations of quoting with prefixed "> ". but > GUI email programs tend to result in non-interleaved responses, anyway. > > (When people write their paragraphs all on one line, you sill sometimes > find that I re-wrap them and use a different prefix character after > the arbitrary breaks in the line that I have introduced.) > > > --- > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.545 / Virus Database: 339 - Release Date: 27/11/2003 > > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.545 / Virus Database: 339 - Release Date: 27/11/2003 > > "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve Neither liberty nor safety", Benjamin Franklin - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ASCII Ribbon Campaign accessBob NO HTML/PDF/RTF in e-mail accessys@smartnospam.net NO MSWord docs in e-mail Access Systems, engineers NO attachments in e-mail, *LINUX powered* access is a civil right *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# THIS message and any attachments are CONFIDENTIAL and may be privileged. They are intended ONLY for the individual or entity named
Received on Wednesday, 3 December 2003 09:17:56 UTC