- From: Steven Pemberton <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl>
- Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 13:14:25 +0100
- To: (wrong string) ël-Massieux" <dom@w3.org>
- Cc: <wai-xtech@w3.org>
From: "Dominique Hazaël-Massieux" <dom@w3.org> > > There's no reason to include the message headers in the <pre>. Only the body > > of the message needs to be <pre>. > Hmmm... I'm not sure I agree. I like the idea of having most of the > email preserved as is in the <pre> tag. Could you give more input on > this? Oh, I'm very sure of this one. The only reason that mail messages need to be in monospace is that some people do layout with whitespace. Monospace is a relatively difficult-to-read font; proportional spaced fonts are always easier to read. However, there is nothing in the headers that require you to display them in monospace. Therefore, to make a more readable page, you should minimise the amount in monospace by displaying the headers in proportional. See my example at http://www.cwi.nl/~steven/w3c/lists/ml-message.html (I also reduced the size of the Message-id line, because it contains no readable information, but you might want to refer to it on rare occasions.) (In an ideal world I would like to choose per email if it is in a <pre> or not. Look at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-html-wg/2002JanMar/0380.html and weep). > Your version is interesting, but some things won't work in production > mode: for instance, a message can have several "Next" and "Next in > thread" messages: how would you incorporate them in one list? I don't think I ever saw more than one [next]; I have seen more [reply]s though. What's hard about [next] [previous] [in reply to] [next in thread] [reply] [reply] [reply] ? > General comments on navigation. > > I note that the hierarchy of the lists are as follows: > > 1: Archives (many lists) > 2: List (one particular list) > 3: Sorted view (by author, by date, etc) > 4: Message. > > Looking at the navigation you can always get from level n to level n+1. > > You can get from 4 to 3 > You can get from 4 to 1 > You can get from 3 to 1 > > But you can't get from 4 to 2 >, from 3 to 2, > yes, you can. The link "this list, more time" is supposed to link to 2 > in 3 and 4. Are you sure? Because of the word 'more', I assumed it meant a different version of level 3. (I couldn't try it because the link didn't work). > I don't think that there is a so strong relationship between 2 and 1. > See my reply to David's mail: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/wai-xtech/2002Mar/0028.html But I thought David's suggestions were really good. I think there is a strong relationship between all the levels, and I use them all (and would use the missing ones if I could, and often get annoyed that I can't navigate easily to level 2). Best wishes, Steven
Received on Thursday, 28 March 2002 07:14:11 UTC