Rich Kulawiec wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 19, 1999 at 08:36:55AM -0800, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
> > But he's right. This is the SAME BLOODY ARGUMENT as NetScape vs.
> > Lynx, but in email form. Users are migrating from Lynx-type email
> > systems to NetScape ones. And the people who love Lynx are screaming
> > at being left behind.
>
> No, we're not. At least *I'm* not.
>
> My gripe is with the mindlessness exhibited by many (most?) of those who
> have joined this migration. If they were actually doing so with
> a *purpose*, I wouldn't mind so much: [...].
>
> If I actually saw pervasive attempts to use this technology (e.g.
> HTML-based email) to enhance communication, then I'd feel differently;
> at the least, I'd grudgingly accept it, perhaps I'd even endorse it.
> I'm all for better communication: that's part of why I have spent and
> am spending my life working on the 'net.
Well, HTML (and MIME encoding) is awfully handy in at least two cases:
1) Mailing graphics, especially photos.
2) Sending a Web page, with an annotation.
Obviously either of these *can* be handled in other ways, but it is
extremely convenient to use attachments to do this, and the vast
majority of users have mail-reading programs that are compatible with
this either inline or by piping the content to a browser.
That sort of content is more likely to be useful in private mail than on
lists, but that is probaby a pretty subtle distinction at this point,
and when the percentage of non-graphical mail users drops to that of
non-graphical browsers, it's also sort of a moot point. I just wish
there was more general support for MIME-compliant digests since
attachments break traditional digests. Although I am also sort of
wondering if the digest paradigm is also somewhat of a dinosaur at this point.
--
Michael C. Berch
[EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
