Tad Anhalt wrote: > RFCs are about interoperability. If you stick to the RFCs, you can > be pretty sure that things will mostly work most of the time. It's not > perfect, but what is? But then, things _do_ change. Especially in computing -- and in computing standards, real ones and de-facto. I don't think that an informal document from 1995 (note that this is /not/ a standard) can be taken at its face value without detailed analysis. Take the fact that almost nobody (not even some of the defenders of the validity of this document) uses 65 character wide lines as an example. I think that changing the line length from 65 characters to 72 characters is a rather arbitrary deviation usually performed without reference to the cited RFC and without a clear goal in mind, and doesn't help us much to solve any involved problems -- compared to what I'm talking about, which would actually solve a real problem. > Besides, just from a most reward for least effort perspective, it > would be a lot easier to write a quick mail filter that would convert > hard line stops to flowing text (and vice-versa) than getting everybody > else in the world to agree to a new format. There are a number of email and news clients that do that, but because of the multitude of formatting styles in use and the differences in content, this doesn't work very well. And note that the problem these text reformatters try to solve predates flowing text without hard returns. However short you set the line length, quoted text that's not reflowed is bound to exceed the maximum line length sooner or later -- assuming there is one (which is the base assumption for setting a fixed line length in the first place). This is probably the strongest argument for flowing text combined with a quoting standard. All fixed-line-length cited text either looks ugly or needs to be reflowed -- manually or automatically. Gerhard -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist