Stack Overflow for Teams — Collaborate and share knowledge with a private group. Create a free Team What is Teams? Learn more.
Ask Question. Asked 3 years, 2 months ago. Active 2 years ago. Viewed 7k times. I am using GSuite formerly Google Apps if it matters. Improve this question.
Brett Brett 1 1 gold badge 3 3 silver badges 15 15 bronze badges. Add a comment. Active Oldest Votes. Change your default text style On your computer, open Gmail. In the top right, click Settings. See all settings. Change the text in the box to be the style you want for your emails.
At the bottom of the page, click Save Changes. The Gmail layout is fluid, which means it changes its width according to the window size of the browser. Check our keyboard shortcuts in this article for quick ways to adjust the size and make it exactly how you need it to be. Just select the three lateral lines the hamburger, as some people call it to the left of the gmail logo and above the Compose button. This will reduce the menu size and give some more room for email view. Select Options.
In Outlook Options, select Mail. Scroll to Message format. In Automatically wrap text at character, enter a number to indicate where you want Outlook to wrap text. Select OK to apply the changes and close the window. To embed HTML in an email in Gmail, copy the code in a plain text format and render the code in a web browser first. This will display the email as it will appear in Gmail. Plain text has no concept of paragraph. You seem to think that a paragraph is a long line.
I, on the other hand, often use the convention that a paragraph is something separated by two or more newlines. I see it used for Unicode characters and for the space in a quoted -- signature separator. My guess was always that the cost of another configuration option is too high for them. Although plain text has no notion of paragraph, it occurs to me while writing this that Markdown has. I would like a mail client with support for Markdown. A paragraph break is encoded as two line breaks in a row, which can not reasonably be distinguished automatically from two genuine line breaks in a row, which happen to have the same encoding, as you essentially have to understand the surrounding natural language text in order to distinguish the two cases.
Now, I agree that the process by which the editing occurs is somewhat irrelevant to you as a user. But it is really important for you as someone advocating a solution. The user sees a long-ish, auto-wrapped piece of text — and that, from the point of view of the user, is a paragraph. That the paragraph breaks are encoded as double-linebreaks in the HTTP message is not the level of abstraction that the user is working at even though the UI may indeed be somewhat leaky there, unfortunately.
A line, by contrast, is an object that is expected to not be reflowed and to be layed out without any structural separation from surrounding lines. And this distinction is not purely academic, but extremely important. A common use for lines is the embedding of code and log excerpts in an email. QP encoding transforms long lines so that they can be transported through email.
But they stay lines nonetheless. If you put a long line of code or log excerpts into an email, your MUA should encode it into shorter lines using QP encoding, but the recipient should just reverse the encoding and again display one long line. If the receiving MUA were to reflow long lines, that would mean reflowing code and log excerpts, which is terrible.
Also, if you have an extremely wide viewport, paragraph text probably should not be reflowed to fill the full width, but rather some optimal reading width. Code blocks, though, most definitely should use the full width to stay readable.
And not only is the distinction of lines and paragraphs important because both have their use cases, but also, the existing encoding standards for emails define how to encode either of them, and advocating for an encoding or decoding that deviates from those standards just causes more incompatibility and thus pain for the user, rather than solving the problem. You can not just make up what you intuitively consider nice encodings.
QP encoding makes it possible to encode the original message including the line breaks the author intended, so that it can be decoded into its original form. How is that problematic? Are you saying what OS X Mail. But my point is that if you QP-encode a long line, and then decode it, all you have is a long line, not a paragraph, and you should usually not reflow lines, whether they came QP-encoded or not and correspondingly, you should not send long lines, just because you can make them fit through SMTP by QP-encoding them, as they still stay long lines at the semantic level.
QP encoding is orthogonal to paragraph encoding. And if you do that right, you might actually not need any QP encoding at all anymore. If Mail. Is that the same thing as Apple Mail? Plain text should mean plain text. I just wish they would use a monospaced font when you are composing a plain text email.
David: There is probably nothing wrong with the mail itself, but if they wanted to produce that output, they should at least make sure it corresponds to the line breaks in the user interface — the problem, IMO, is, that they are silently changing the user input. Or more precisely, it encodes paragraphs in a way that is valid plain text, readable for a human reader just as any other plain text, but with additional information hidden in whitespace that can be used by an appropriately capable MUA to decode it into paragraphs for improved rendering.
I write my mails in Vim and my editor settings automatically make sure of that. I find long flowing lines annoying and hard to read. Then there are people who write mails in Emacs or Vim — see vmail.
Not having a monospace font screws up all the ASCII formatting of my mails which looks particularly good in my editor. Displaying words on a line itself makes any text uncomfortable to read. The small screen is a limitation, a handicap, and it should be treated as a special case.
The ability of the screen to display at least 78 characters a line is a case on its own. I find the reasonable line length essential when reading the text. Many websites enforce such length, including this one. What you are arguing here is whether the text should have word-wrap as a property, or if this should be determined by the viewer program.
Personally, I support this view from 2 years ago. Viewers should determine how to wrap messages, including those on ultra-wide screens, for readability. Senders should preserve all natural language attributes, including where the author inserted hard breaks. Everything else should flow. I totally agree with you. The autowrap feature works poorly in writing mails in Japanese. It only works properly in languages made of words and whitespaces, not in Japanese, Korean, Chinese, and so on.
Ryou: Well, modern Korean language has spaces example text , so this does not pose a big problem for them. However, they have poor support for East-Asian such as Chinese and Japanese. When you send a plain text mail in CJK with Gmail, they will just break your line at spaces. If I randomly insert three English words in the above text and send this in Gmail, I get this:.
0コメント