From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/25646 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Fran=E7ois_Pinard?= Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: highlighting and fontification Date: 04 Oct 1999 21:40:29 -0400 Sender: owner-ding@hpc.uh.edu Message-ID: References: <199909152213.SAA72350@alderaan.gsfc.nasa.gov> NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035162994 15108 80.91.224.250 (21 Oct 2002 01:16:34 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 01:16:34 +0000 (UTC) Cc: ding@gnus.org Return-Path: Original-Received: from spinoza.math.uh.edu (spinoza.math.uh.edu [129.7.128.18]) by sclp3.sclp.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id VAA01703 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 21:44:46 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from sina.hpc.uh.edu (lists@Sina.HPC.UH.EDU [129.7.3.5]) by spinoza.math.uh.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id UAB22984; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 20:43:39 -0500 (CDT) Original-Received: by sina.hpc.uh.edu (TLB v0.09a (1.20 tibbs 1996/10/09 22:03:07)); Mon, 04 Oct 1999 20:44:14 -0500 (CDT) Original-Received: from sclp3.sclp.com (root@sclp3.sclp.com [204.252.123.139]) by sina.hpc.uh.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA25288 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 20:44:02 -0500 (CDT) Original-Received: from jupiter.rtsq.qc.ca (rtsq.grics.qc.ca [199.84.132.81]) by sclp3.sclp.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id VAA01684 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 21:42:04 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from ariel.progiciels-bpi.ca by jupiter.rtsq.qc.ca (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id VAA18586; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 21:41:45 -0400 Original-Received: from iro.umontreal.ca (uucp@localhost) by ariel.progiciels-bpi.ca (950413.SGI.8.6.12/950213.SGI) via UUCP id VAA10788; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 21:44:58 -0700 Original-Received: from titan.progiciels-bpi.ca by icule.progiciels-bpi.ca (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA04286; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 21:40:42 -0400 Original-Received: from titan.progiciels-bpi.ca.progiciels-bpi.ca (unknown [199.84.132.86]) by titan.progiciels-bpi.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8784050; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 21:40:30 -0400 (EDT) Original-To: "Edward J. Sabol" X-Face: "b_m|CE6#'Q8fliQrwHl9K,]PA_o'*S~Dva{~b1n*)K*A(BIwQW.:LY?t4~xhYka_.LV?Qq `}X|71X0ea&H]9Dsk!`kxBXlG;q$mLfv_vtaHK_rHFKu]4'<*LWCyUe@ZcI6"*wB5M@[m 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