Subject:
|
Re: Length of lines
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Fri, 4 May 2001 23:55:11 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
136 times
|
| |
|
|
Heh, guess my reader is set to 76! :) M$ default, I suspect.
Build On!
John Matthews
John Matthews <jmatthew@columbus.rr.com> wrote in message
news:GCu517.1Kv@lugnet.com...
> I thought 80 was the number. That was the number when I started using the
> internet around 6 years ago. Has it been revised?
>
> Build On!
> John Matthews
____________________________________________________________________________
> ____
1234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456
> 7890
>
>
> Fredrik Glöckner <fredrik.glockner@bio.uio.no> wrote in message
> news:qrd3dalclwh.fsf@eos.uio.no...
> > I see a lot of posts with long lines. Typically around 75-80. The
> > problem with these is that when people quote them, they become even
> > longer, and eventually they are broken by some clients.
> >
> >
> > A common rule on USENET is to keep the line length below 72 when
> > composing an article. Now, LUGNET is not USENET, but it uses the same
> > transfer mechanism (NNTP), and some people use the same kind of
> > clients to access the posts.
> >
> >
> > Where do the posts with so long lines come from? Does the web
> > interface break lines at 80, for example? (No, I don't use it.) If
> > it does, would it be a good idea to cut this down to 72, so that fewer
> > posts are generated with long lines, and the problem with broken
> > quotation is avoided?
> >
> >
> > Fredrik
>
>
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Length of lines
|
| I thought 80 was the number. That was the number when I started using the internet around 6 years ago. Has it been revised? Build On! John Matthews ___...___ ____ 12345678901234567890...7890123456 7890 Fredrik Glöckner <fredrik.glockner@bio.uio.no> (...) (23 years ago, 4-May-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
7 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
