>>>> However, almost all message editors comply to it, so that's >>>> common practice. SH>>> Maybe if you only include message editors specifically written SH>>> for FidoNet rather than all message editors. AV>> Obviously, yes: all other message editors are out-of-scope here. ml> really? what about all the new *nix based systems that use nano ml> or vi
They are generic text editors, not message editors.
ml> or even emacs
Really? They finally created a text editor for it?
ml> for their users' message editor?
The use of a text editor to compose messages (like I do with vim) doesn't make that text editor a message editor.
ml> at least they can write and display UTF-8...
Never used that until beginning to learn Chinese...
ml> which is more important?
Whether the msged will support UTF-8, would you use it? What if it will be a Linux-only fork?
>>>> Moreover, people with incompliant editors may be banned from some >>>> echoareas. SH>>> Sounds like areas that aren't worth posting in anyway if they'll SH>>> be happy to punish users for decisions their sysops make. AV>> In practice, those users simply move to points. ml> not over here they don't... they never have... they live with the