mark wrote:
Then, of course, there's the LARGE number of us who DESPISE HTML mail
(aka virus-spreader email),
While you're certainly free to despise html-mail, I would question the
proposition that html-mail is responsible for spreading viruses. Html is
a textual format like XML, so unless you're dumb enough to enable
javascript or Active-X in your mail agent there's very little danger.
The most prevalent means of spreading viruses is through binary
attachments to plain-text e-mail messages. Precisely the manner of
transmitting complex documents most loudly advocated for by those
opposing html-mail.
And while there probably is a statistical correlation between spam and
html-mail, it's hardly a one-to-one correspondence. I receive around 5
or 6 html-mails a day -- newsletters and such that I've signed up for --
and none of it is spam. OTH, I've certainly seen my share of plain-text
spam, including those stupid "Nigerian ex-patriot" phishing scams.
and who REALLY DO NOT WANT to HAVE to open a
goddamned dog-slow word processor to read our email. (We won't even
*begin* to talk about idiots who send out .pdf email....)
While I'm sure some of that could be just as well transmitted in
plain-text, there ARE legitimate reasons for sending someone a more
complex document, complete with formatting -- pictures, charts,
diagrams, tables... it could be a legal document that requires a
signature... lots of possibilities.
Or, for another example, about all the companies who *REQUIRE* use of
the corporate-approved email?
I would imagine that in most cases if there is a corporate policy
requiring the use of Outlook there is a similar policy requiring the use
of MSO, and for all the same reasons.
Ready to tie OO.o to Lotus Notes? Or Outlook?
Ready or not, somebody better be looking at these things if OOo is to
penetrate the Enterprise market.
*****
There's an aspect to all this that I believe a lot of people who hate
html-mail, such as yourself, are missing. I believe that the "attachment
to e-mail" paradigm actually serves to fortify the MS file format lock-in.
Consider that html is actually a fairly poor file format for complex
layout; it's essentially all based on the abuse of tables. So when
someone wants to transmit a complex document via e-mail the only viable
choice is to attach a file -- generally a binary file. Even an ODF file
is binary as it sits on your hard drive (try opening a zip file in a
text editor sometime).
So if you're forced to attach a binary file to an e-mail, which type of
file are you going to use? Probably the type that is most likely to be
usable on the other end. Now this generally means either an MSO doc,
xls, or ppt, or a pdf. We would like to make that ODF but it's going to
be an uphill battle.
Now consider that ODF is a much richer format than HTML. And being
similar to HTML, there is no technical reason (that I see, anyway) that
the format couldn't be adapted to eventually replace HTML. This would
include usage in e-mail. The main adaptations would be that the XML
would have to remain uncompressed and then the individual files which
make up the document (content.xml, manifest.xml, etc.) would comprise a
sort of multi-part MIME message. The result would be that the complex
document that previously had to be transmitted as an attachment could
now actually BE the e-mail, the BODY of the e-mail.
When browsers and e-mail clients are developed that can render such a
beast then the scales will tip toward ODF being the MOST CONVENIENT
means of storing, handling, and transmitting documents. Binary formats
will be considered a PITA to deal with, even by the technically
illiterate. And since ODF is an ASCII format, it will be that much
harder to distribute viruses that way.
Yeah, it's a long chain of if's, and it won't happen overnight if at
all, but it's something to consider.
--
Rod
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
