> Yes. Three times larger is only if you have a *really* pathetically bad
> converter.
And unfortunately, there exist a number of bad HTML tools -- I can't
really tell you what they are, because I write my HTML by hand and
with Perl scripts, but I have had to *re*-write a great many pages,
reducing their bulk considerably in the process, so I know they're
out there. (But without even knowing or looking, I will give 3:1 odds
that these tools are made by Microsoft.)
Tables seem to be one of the areas in which some of the tools especially
fall down: I've now almost gotten used to the idea that every item
in every row of a table will be tagged with the font even if it never
changes throughout the table. That little trick alone can make the
table *several* times larger than a correctly-written HTML version
and larger still than a text version. And it's just for openers.
Is this a valid reason to be against HTML in email? Tactically, yes;
strategically, no; it's a fairly well-defined technical problem
with a relatively straightforward technical solution.
---Rsk
Rich Kulawiec
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
