From: "Keith F. Lynch" <kfl at KeithLynch.net>
To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at KeithLynch.net>
Subject: [WSFA] Re: gah! let's try that again - Re: google word list
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 23:11:05 -0500 (EST)
Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at KeithLynch.net>

Ted White <twhite8 at cox.net> wrote:
> I'm fine with plain text, but I draw the line at fixed-width fonts,
> all of which look ugly on a monitor screen, ...

But a lot of text is in the form of tables or columns, intended to
line up vertically.  One approach would be to be able to easily switch
between fixed-width and proportional fonts, and to not complain unless
both looked wrong.

> We're living in nearly the second decade of the 21st century now,
> Keith, not the eighth decade of the 20th century.  I find it odd
> that a man as much into personal computers as you are has chosen
> to remain in their early years of development, softwear, etc.

Uh, no.  I pick and choose what's best, rather than glomming onto
whatever random junk is floating around this week and will be
deprecated or forgotten next week.

Note that in over eight years this list has only gotten one spam, and
no viruses.  And none of my home systems have ever gotten a virus or
been taken over by a botnet.  So I think I know what I'm doing.

> However, and more to the point, what failed you in your misguided
> attempt to underline a word with symbols a line below it is the
> simple fact that each of us has undoubtedly chosen a different
> number of characters for line-wrapping (width of right-hand margins;
> a wide or narrow column of type), if we've chosen any at all,

Line-wrapping is up to the sender.  The recipient then sees the line
breaks wherever the sender put them.  The recipient can change them,
but will only do so if they look really screwed up.  At least that's
how it's supposed to work.

> with the result that it was very unlikely that your "underlining"
> would end up under the word you wished.

I'd bet that most people on the list saw it under the correct word.

> There are of course far easier and more obvious ways to emphasize a
> word, from the old fashioned "[sic]" to using an asterisk on each
> end of the word (puts it into boldface in some email clients, like
> mine; otherwise provides a form of emphasis which dates back to
> typewriter days), or putting an underline at each end of the word
> (which will induce underlining under the word in some clients but
> otherwise, to my eye, looks clunky).  And forward slashes bookending
> a word will put it into Italics....

Indeed, but I don't like to do that within quoted text.  I prefer to
leave quoted text strictly unchanged, except for where the line breaks
go.  And I leave even that alone if it appears to have significance.