gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) (02/12/90)
[This msg is posted both to a FidoNET echo and to a Usenet newsgroup. Please follow up to whichever one is local to you. I'll try to pass any significant comments to the other side. -- gnu@toad.com] Robert.Wilhite@p99.f14.n376.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Robert Wilhite) wrote: > Currently, mailout & newsout don't tamper with the extra-long lines > found on Fidonet. One of the recurring complaints I see on Usenet is > that lines longer than 80 (or 72?) bytes get truncated, so many of the > messages from Fidonet are severely mangled. This is not the real problem, as far as I can tell. The Usenet transport software can transfer lines longer than 72 or 80 characters. There are limits in some mailers [sendmail] that mess things up slightly on lines longer than 256 characters, but those mailers are for mail, not usenet news, so they usually don't come into play here. What is probably more of a problem is that the Unix *news reader programs* and *mail reader programs* don't handle long lines particularly well. They just tend to wrap them at the terminal width, without regard to spaces. The Fidonet reading programs wrap the lines for your reading convenience, since on small machines it's hard to tell how wide the screen will be (40, 64, or 80, or more). As transported around, there are only newlines at the ends of paragraphs. There seems to be no particular easy solution. You could make all messages that go Fido->Usenet get their lines wrapped to some handy width, but there are some messages that really should not be reformatted -- source code, encoded binaries, and messages encrypted for privacy come immediately to mind. Ideally the news and mail transport mechanisms should just move the bytes, without messing around with them. We already have the CR/LF problem though, so we are doing some messing as it is -- but let's not make it worse. > Any chance this will be addressed in a subsequent release of mailout & > newsout? Probably a better place to address this is in the Usenet news readers. There is no good reason why they shouldn't be able to wrap lines intelligently while showing you a message. For once, let the Unix side fix up their old software, rather than changing the Fido side... that is, if we can get anyone to make the changes. The Unix programs are all free in source, so changing them is no problem. And if there are any lingering problems in the Unix news transport code with long lines, let's find them and fix them too. -- John Gilmore {sun,pacbell,uunet,pyramid}!hoptoad!gnu gnu@toad.com Just say *yes* to drugs. If someone offers you a drug war, just say no.
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (02/12/90)
In article <10183@hoptoad.uucp> gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) writes: > Probably a better place to address this is in the Usenet news readers. > There is no good reason why they shouldn't be able to wrap lines > intelligently while showing you a message. What makes you think we *want* to change our software? My own experience with message systems like Fido and Opus and TBBS that do smart wrapping is that it's more of a pain than it's worth. These days everyone's got 80 column terminals, even on 8-bitters, so perhaps it's time to quit catering to old hardware on *both* sides. And it's not just the newsreaders. There's all the text editors, and so on. No, the right way to fix this problem is in the gateway. Keep Usenet conventions on the UNIX side, and Fido conventions on the Fido side. -- _--_|\ Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>. / \ \_.--._/ Xenix Support -- it's not just a job, it's an adventure! v "Have you hugged your wolf today?" `-_-'
karl@MorningStar.Com (Karl Fox) (02/14/90)
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: In article <10183@hoptoad.uucp> gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) writes: > Probably a better place to address this is in the Usenet news readers. > There is no good reason why they shouldn't be able to wrap lines > intelligently while showing you a message. What makes you think we *want* to change our software? Well, what make you think we *don't*? I would dearly *love* to have a newsreader that I could use with proportional fonts and a lot narrower column width than 80 bytes (I have an eye muscle problem that makes very wide text hard to read). -- Karl Fox, Morning Star Technologies karl@MorningStar.COM
pozar@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Pozar) (02/15/90)
In article <ZOP1D9Fxds13@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >In article <10183@hoptoad.uucp> gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) writes: >> Probably a better place to address this is in the Usenet news readers. >> There is no good reason why they shouldn't be able to wrap lines >> intelligently while showing you a message. > >What makes you think we *want* to change our software? My own experience >with message systems like Fido and Opus and TBBS that do smart wrapping is >that it's more of a pain than it's worth. These days everyone's got 80 >column terminals, even on 8-bitters, so perhaps it's time to quit catering >to old hardware on *both* sides. Hmmm, I run a VT-220 in the 132 col mode. I don't think it is safe to assume that "These days everyone's got 80 column terminals". Tim -- Tim Pozar Try also... Internet: pozar@toad.com Fido: 1:125/555 PaBell: (415) 788-3904 USNail: KKSF / 77 Maiden Lane / San Francisco CA 94108
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (02/15/90)
In article <10249@hoptoad.uucp> pozar@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Pozar) writes: > Hmmm, I run a VT-220 in the 132 col mode. I don't think you have better eyes than me, mate. > it is safe to assume that "These days everyone's got 80 column > terminals". But you do. I'm talking about 80 vs. less than 80 (how about a 20 character line?)... -- _--_|\ Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>. / \ \_.--._/ Xenix Support -- it's not just a job, it's an adventure! v "Have you hugged your wolf today?" `-_-'
brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (02/15/90)
Many people have terminals as wide as 132 columns or more. It is, however, safe to assume that very few people want to read text lines that are this long. My experience is that such an aspect ratio in your text is uncomfortable. This is also why most sources of text, from newspapers to paperbacks, prefer a short column width when they can get it. I am sure one or two people might come out and say they like it, but market studies indicate it's not a big demand. Of course, wrapped text can be wrapped to a nice length like 60 columns even on a 130 column display, it does offer choice. But the burden of having everybody write in text formatter language is too much for the tiny gain, at least right now. -- Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
karl@MorningStar.Com (Karl Fox) (02/16/90)
Brad Templeton <brad@looking.on.ca> writes:
Of course, wrapped text can be wrapped to a nice length like 60
columns even on a 130 column display, it does offer choice. But
the burden of having everybody write in text formatter language
is too much for the tiny gain, at least right now.
No need to. Use newlines as now, except within paragraphs, which
would be entered as a single line. Newsreaders could then wrap these
long lines as appropriate.
--
Karl Fox, Morning Star Technologies karl@MorningStar.COMpeter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (02/16/90)
If you're to handle line wrap in the newsreaders, how do you handle: * included text. * tables. * figures. * signatures. * preformatted text. * etc... Basically, BBS software that does its own word-wrap is a major pain in the rear end. You end up with stuff like: In article <typical_cnews_stuff@ficc.uu.net> Peter da Silva writes: > In article <more_cnews_stuff@cup.portal.com> Bozo-the-clone writes: > > Well, I think that comp.sources.aquaria is > the only logical name for > an > aquaria group, and it gets better distribution > besides. > > > > But distribution isn't a valid reason for creating a new group! And like: * included text. * tables. * figures. * signatures. * preformatted text. * etc... I realise that things have gotten somewhat better, but I haven't seen one yet that hasn't made me wish I could type nroff into it. -- _--_|\ Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>. / \ \_.--._/ Xenix Support -- it's not just a job, it's an adventure! v "Have you hugged your wolf today?" `-_-'
pozar@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Pozar) (02/17/90)
In article <9UR10XExds13@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >In article <10249@hoptoad.uucp> pozar@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Pozar) writes: >> Hmmm, I run a VT-220 in the 132 col mode. I don't think > >you have better eyes than me, mate. > >> it is safe to assume that "These days everyone's got 80 column >> terminals". > >But you do. I'm talking about 80 vs. less than 80 (how about a 20 >character line?)... > > Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>. I must have better eyes than you did. You atributed a quote to me that I didn't write. I am for USENET and Mail readers to line wrap on there own. Please recheck your postings before you send them out their merry way. Tim -- Tim Pozar Try also... Internet: pozar@toad.com Fido: 1:125/555 PaBell: (415) 788-3904 USNail: KKSF / 77 Maiden Lane / San Francisco CA 94108
tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) (02/18/90)
In article <1990Feb17.171748.7106@uwslh.slh.wisc.edu> lishka@uwslh.slh.wisc.edu (Chris Lishka (King Arthur's roommate) ) writes: >I disagree. These days some people (like myself) read news on >workstations with windows. I can read news in a 1x1 or 150x150 (with >a tiny font) window. I would think that 80-column terminals are now >becoming "old technology." Well, it's still rude to post articles wider than the reasonably expectable width of most readers' screens. As other posters have pointed out, it's a problematic exercise to try and massage a wide posting on the reader's end to make it fit; you lose all sorts of format and readability. It should be the poster's responsibility to publish an article his readers can read without going blind. Superwide workstation windows are a wonderful thing for many purposes, but Usenet message exchange is probably not one of them. I think an RFC should address this.
roise@sumax.UUCP (Linda Roise) (02/19/90)
In article <ZOP1D9Fxds13@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >My own experience >with message systems like Fido and Opus and TBBS that do smart wrapping is >that it's more of a pain than it's worth. These days everyone's got 80 >column terminals, even on 8-bitters, so perhaps it's time to quit catering >to old hardware on *both* sides. Having experienced trying to use various BBSs and Unix systems with some nonstandard (read: old) hardware, I'd hate to put anyone out of business who hasn't got the bucks to upgrade. But I have to agree with Peter that the wordwrap on systems is a pain in the neck when one is used to having a choice. I would like to be able to append a .signature and have it stay formatted the way I had it in the first place. I've tried to figure out a way to fox those systems into leaving it alone, but a space at the beginning of the line doesn't always work. And I am aware that since what I want left alone is 80-column text, those with 40-column machines will get a strange result. I suppose that since one of the beauties of computer communication is the ability of incompatible machines to talk to each other (which to me is a miracle in itself), it's a good idea to cultivate tolerance for small annoyances. Provided that, to you, they ARE small ones. -- Linda L. Roise, M.A. : uucp :{uw-beaver,uunet!gtenmc!dataio}!sumax!roise Addiction Studies Pgm : Internet: roise@{blake,max,uwacdc}.acs.washington.edu Seattle University : BITNet : roise@max.acs.washington.edu Seattle, WA 98122______: Voice___: (206) 296-5351_____________________________