On 5 Jul 2002, at 16:42, Thomas Gramstad wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Jul 2002, Nicolas Brouard wrote:
> > I like html and prefer to use mails in html mode instead of
> > reading attached documents.
>
> Actually, there are many reasons to avoid HTML in E-mail;
> http://www.efn.no/html-bad.html
This isn't the place to engage in a side thread on HTML email, but I'll
just mention that "plain text" email is really the wave of the past.
Almost from the day email was born, a *LOT* of folk didn't like 'plain
text'. The programmers, who were pretty used to plain text for source-
code, were pretty comfortable with plain text, but few others were and
the quest for something better began almost from the outset.
Over the decades, there have been a score or more schemes for doing
better-than-plain-text email, and I will freely admit that HTML is
without doubt the very worst of the alternatives that I've seen go by.
But as we all know, for a lot of things the choice isn't made by geeks
selecting the "best" choice, but by the marketplace/users gravitating to
what fancies them, and for good or ill, HTML has gotten what I think is
an unshakable foothold. Better than trying to pretend it is still 1975
and everyone is using VT100s would be to find ways to make HTML *better*
as an email encoding [e.g., fix listservs to accommodate it]. Arguing
that email [and usenet] should be singular among essentially EVERY other
communication channel and stay firmly rooted in the VT100 era strikes me
as shovelling against the tide.
/Bernie\
--
Bernie Cosell Fantasy Farm Fibers
mailto:bernie@fantasyfarm.com Pearisburg, VA
--> Too many people, too few sheep <--
Follow-Ups:
References:
|
|
