💾 Archived View for bbs.geminispace.org › u › AlbertLarsan68 › 19453 captured on 2024-12-17 at 15:35:13. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Re: "Plain text email - To wrap or not wrap?"
There exists the format=flowed MIME parameter, that allows hard-wrapped text to be re-flowed by the User-Agent.
Sep 06 · 3 months ago
yes, f=f is the solution, even if in practice most people will mess it up when replying.
🎵 alice-sur-le-nuage · Sep 06 at 22:12:
Allowing clients to decide how text should wrap, or not, makes sense to me.
Yeah, hardwraps are not ideal, especially in this strange age when eg. you might be using a smartphone to ssh into your home server and use `neomutt` or whatever to read your e-mails…
My phone, for example, can roughly display 60 chars in a row. Usually you wrap plaintext emails at 80 chars - the default terminal width. You can see how inconvenient this can get.
Letting clients wrap text is a great kindness.
🛰️ lufte [OP] · Sep 09 at 23:05:
That is one long RFC to address something that looks simple at first sight. I guess nothing is really that simple when you dig deep enough. Too bad that it requires a sort of agreement between the parties, the sender must include the parameter and the recipient has to support it.
Plain text email - To wrap or not wrap? — I found Drew DeVault's guide on plain text email a while ago but I was never convinced on the "Wrapping your text" recommendation. Why force a width limit on readers of your email that will end up looking like this if they, by any chance, have an even smaller window or bigger font? Why not leave it to the viewer software?