[erlang-questions] Announcing Erlang.org Code of Conduct

[Anthony Ramine]

Le 19 mars 2015 à 02:23, Richard A. O'Keefe <ok@REDACTED> a écrit :

> I said I agreed with trying to keep lines short.

And that's where I disagree.

> On 19/03/2015, at 9:40 am, Anthony Ramine <n.oxyde@REDACTED> wrote:
>> I disagree. To me your messages look funny (lines *too* short) on my main computer, and just plain unreadable on any mobile screen, because it must wrap it furthermore to make it fit the screen.
> 
> Well, I found your message uncomfortable to read
> because of its long lines.

Why is your window so large that my message is uncomfortable? Why waste the screen estate if you want it to show short lines? Want short lines? Have a narrow window.

> The point of my message was to *increase* authorial
> freedom compared with the proposed CoC rule.
> Instead of saying "74 character limit OR ELSE",
> I was suggesting "use some judgement".

The point of my message was just to point to you that your messages are uncomfortable when not seen on a proper computer.

>> I don't expect the Web to be hand-wrapped, nor books, nor papers done with LaTeX.
> 
> The wrapping of books cannot be changed.
> The wrapping of papers done with LaTeX is
> *mostly* done by LaTeX, but it is very
> common for people to have to rewrite text
> to get good line breaks, even with (La)TeX.
> One thing any experienced TeXnician is aware
> of is that text written for one paper size
> will *not* look good when reformatted for a
> different size, *when formatted by (La)TeX*.
> Especially tables.

Eh? Prose will look good when reflowed under LaTeX algorithms. Why mention tables when I'm comparing LaTeX to mails in the context of reading prose?

> Oddly enough, e-mail is NOT the Web, NOT a book,
> and NOT a paper done with LaTeX (or Weird, or Lout,
> or Troff).
> 
> Anyone who finds my lines too short must have
> terrible trouble with cereal boxes and newspapers.
> (And I do know that e-mail isn't either of those.
> Although it *is* very very much like the letters
> to the Editor, which conventionally uses much
> shorter lines than I do.)

I'm having trouble with your too short lines because they look just plain wrong on a mobile phone. [1]

And I don't eat cereals, I'm gluten-free, m'kay.

>> Could we finally evolve from plain plain/text to format=flowed plain/text?
>> 
>> 	http://joeclark.org/ffaq.html
> 
> That's pretty much what the Mail program does _anyway_.
> Basically, all format=flowed does is to take away
> the author's freedom to use short lines; apart from
> that it doesn't seem to change anything.

No, your own mail client doesn't use any combination of encoding and content type that let the text reflow, hence why it looks bad on my phone, and just losing screen estate on my computer. [2]

> The point about mobiles is well taken.  I know I had
> great trouble trying to read e-mail on an iPad using
> a web mail interface.  Mind you, that was because of
> long lines, not short ones.  But you know, there is
> nothing that stops a mobile phone mail reader from
> re-breaking paragraphs.

Yes there is something that stops my mobile mail reader from re-breaking your paragraphs: your very email forbids it through its Content-Transfer-Encoding and Content-Type. Just look at the raw email you sent.

Regards.

[1] http://cl.ly/aHtt
[2] http://cl.ly/aI8f