The Great "Hard Return" Debate

[Steve Lamb]

    And now, folks, a demonstration of a reflowing editor and why Bill's
arguments are moot.  Here is his text, currently.  Note the utterly horrid
formatting with the very same hard CRs he so detests.  It looks like it is
wrapped to, oh.... 60 characters?

Wednesday, November 03, 1999, 7:12:55 AM, Bill wrote:
> No. Your are not missing anything at all. The only
> problem is that single strings without HRts are messed
> with by the internet fabric for ancient reasons for
> which I haven't grasped the technical justification.

    Now witness the same block after one simple command in three editors that
I am personally aware of.

Wednesday, November 03, 1999, 7:12:55 AM, Bill wrote:
> No. Your are not missing anything at all. The only problem is that single
> strings without HRts are messed with by the internet fabric for ancient
> reasons for which I haven't grasped the technical justification.

    Now doesn't that look neater?  But wait, there's more!  Here's a
demonstration of what Bill's message would look like if he had his way and
there were no CRs.

Wednesday, November 03, 1999, 7:12:55 AM, Bill wrote:
> No. Your are not missing anything at all. The only problem is that single
strings without HRts are messed with by the internet fabric for ancient
reasons for which I haven't grasped the technical justification.

    Kinda ugly with only one quote mark, isn't it?  Anyway, on with the
show...



Wednesday, November 03, 1999, 7:12:55 AM, Bill wrote:
> No. Your are not missing anything at all. The only problem is that single
> strings without HRts are messed with by the internet fabric for ancient
> reasons for which I haven't grasped the technical justification.

    If you would sit down, shut up, listen and think, maybe you would.  Limits
have to be set to avoid denial of service attacks.  1000 characters was
chosen.  Why?  So someone couldn't send a line of a few megs in length and
have the server die.  There is an acceptable length, beyond that, you're on
your own.

    Furthermore, people still use text terminals.  In fact, a goodly portion
of my mail reading is on my 'nix box in an rxvt.  80 characters wide.  That
has been the historical upper limit for years upon years.  GUI can get to that
width easily.  As you sit there whining about formatting problems all I can
think about is why you haven't LARTed the individuals on the other end for not
formatting in the standard which is most likely older than they are.  If it is
in ASCII, 80 characters wide (78 is actually safest).  If they did that, you'd
have no problems.  Instead of changing the internet to suit your specific
needs enforce a stylistic standard on *YOUR* end.

    On top of all of that, quoting.  I've touched on that in other messages
and above.  If you *really* want me to explain it again, I'm more than happy
to.

    Generally there are good reasons why things are done the way they are.
There is the rare exception (like the whole mailing-list, reply-to fiasco) but
usually those exceptions have long-standing, raging debates around them (like
the whole mailing-list, reply-to fiasco).  This, your personal crusade not
withstanding, is not one of them.

    So deal with it in one of the many *VALID* ways available to you instead
of trying to change what has worked for many, MANY years and has many more
valid reasons to remain unchanged compared to your personal PREFERENCES.

-- 
         Steve C. Lamb         | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
         ICQ: 5107343          | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------