---------- > From: Tim Forcer > To: PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU > Subject: Re: Mail formatting > Date: Tuesday, 1 July 1997 17:51 > > Although I've now upgraded to Eudora Light 3.0.1, which is very good and > handles all sorts of formatting, I strongly support all those wanting to > keep to plain ASCII text. The main reason is that ALL applications, > printers and users understand this format. Sure, it's possible to do all > sorts of clever things with html, rtf and the rest, but those "standards" > aren't set in stone, and it's very easy to find that something is missing, > stopping you reading anything at all. Yes, I understand that, but how long is the 'lowest common denominator' factor going to hold? 1, 10, 100 years? Ascii's been going at least 10, but I'd hate to be still using it in 20 years. > > If the vast majority can agree to keep to ASCII plain text, could there > also be some general acceptance of making initial posts have a line length > of about 70 characters? This means that even after they have been subject > to several nested responses, the line length stays below the magic 80. > Leading spaces (except in quoted code, where they must be retained) are > also an irritation - although I accept this is probably purely personal. > I just let paragraphs line-wrap - just like a word processor. CR's belong at the end of paragraphs, not lines. If you've ever had to clean up a document that's been cr/lf'ed at the end of each line, and the margins changed, you'll know why. I hate leading spaces too - but without a formatting standard other than plain ascii, you can't set user margins/tabs etc. > Generally speaking I'm a slow upgrader. I'm still using Word 2.0 (and Word 2 runs significantly faster than its successors. Unless you have a fast Pentium, I'd keep with it - as you say it does all you need (and probably more). Even Word 2 could handle RTF though. > haven't yet found a significant reason to upgrade, even if money wasn't a > factor). My Win95 CD-ROM sat on my desk for almost a year before I ran it. OTOH I like 95 much more than 3.11 - it's replacement for the hopeless Progman/Fileman 4.11 and earlier had - (Explorer) justifies it alone. > I don't object to new things on principle, and I'm delighted with the > Eudora upgrade. My objection is that many upgrades actually take the user > several steps backwards. 95 is hungrier. I was at a friends place using Eudora lite and hated it at first use. Admittedly, it was a Win16 version, which tend to be clunky after using **good** Win32 apps MikeS