Gnus development mailing list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "François Pinard" <pinard@iro.umontreal.ca>
Cc: ding@gnus.org
Subject: Re: highlighting and fontification
Date: 04 Oct 1999 21:40:29 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <oqso3qoa9e.fsf@titan.progiciels-bpi.ca> (raw)
In-Reply-To: "Edward J. Sabol"'s message of "Wed, 15 Sep 1999 18:13:31 -0400 (EDT)"

"Edward J. Sabol" <sabol@alderaan.gsfc.nasa.gov> writes:

> Personally, I believe that having two spaces at the end of a sentence is an
> antiquated convention born in an era of typewriters and fixed-width fonts.

It is still usual to consider email as based on fixed-width fonts (even if
XEmacs allow proportional fonts in many contexts, I've been told so :-).
Even if antique, fixed width fonts are still very actual.  And so the
double space convention, even for French.  This is how I learned to type
initially with mechanical typewriters, following French typing textbooks.

I guess conventions are often quoted out of context.  In usual typography,
printing articles and books, fixed fonts are rather unusual.  The single
space rule is more popular in that field, but it never meant that single
spacing is sufficient with fixed width fonts.

Whatever the rules are, we should keep in sight that the driving force is
legibility, much more than aesthetics.  Two spaces between sentences with
fixed width fonts is clearly more legible to me, this goes without saying.
With proportional fonts, the two-spaces rule is less meaningful, because
spaces are compressible and stretchable, and there are other compensating
devices ensuring good legibility nevertheless.

Let's take the simultaneous left-right justification.  It has been
demonstrated that for fixed width fonts, it hurts legibility and decreases
reading speed.  This is pure evil.  Some people consider it makes their
texts more graphically pleasing, which might be true, even if totally out
of place, because texts are written to be read, not admired.

Of course, everything else being equal, aesthetical texts are more
pleasing to read, and so, acquire a bit of legibility by being pleasing.
Proportional fonts allow for simultaneous left-right justification without
serious loss of legibility, so it is appropriate in this case.

But for fixed-text fonts, like in average email, or with document sources,
legibility is seriously hurt to start with, and then special care is much
more importantly taken wherever possible.  This is why it is especially
important to totally avoid simultaneous left-right justification, and to
use more space between sentences than between words.  Those relaxations,
which become acceptable with proportional fonts, are not fully welcome
for those still using/reading fixed width fonts, like for example, in email.

-- 
François Pinard   http://www.iro.umontreal.ca/~pinard



  parent reply	other threads:[~1999-10-05  1:40 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
1999-09-09 17:51 Daniel Monjar
1999-09-09 21:55 ` Jack Vinson
1999-09-09 22:34 ` Karl Kleinpaste
1999-09-10 15:35   ` Stainless Steel Rat
1999-09-10 16:24     ` Kai Großjohann
1999-09-10 16:32       ` Emerick Rogul
1999-09-10 18:29       ` Stainless Steel Rat
1999-09-10 19:01         ` Kai Großjohann
1999-09-12  5:16           ` Stainless Steel Rat
1999-09-13  9:17             ` Michael Piotrowski
1999-09-13 18:32             ` Florian Weimer
1999-09-13 21:46               ` Mick Gower
1999-09-15 22:13                 ` Edward J. Sabol
1999-09-19  2:56                   ` Greg Stark
1999-09-25  0:47                   ` Ken McGlothlen
1999-10-05  1:40                   ` François Pinard [this message]
1999-10-05 14:13                     ` Hrvoje Niksic
1999-10-05 22:49                       ` Russ Allbery
1999-10-06  0:45                         ` David Coe
1999-09-14 12:33               ` Toby Speight
1999-09-14  8:24             ` Tibor Simko
1999-09-11  1:44         ` Rene H. Larsen
1999-09-11  7:06           ` Graham Murray
1999-09-12  5:05             ` Stainless Steel Rat

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=oqso3qoa9e.fsf@titan.progiciels-bpi.ca \
    --to=pinard@iro.umontreal.ca \
    --cc=ding@gnus.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).