On Mon, Apr 06, 1998 at 11:52:41PM -0400, Woodrick, Ed wrote:
> First, just the included text
> operation. Some HTML mailers put a horizontal bar down the left side and
> change the color/format of the reply text. It makes it significantly
> easier to read than the > characters that get so confusing [...]
I have no problem with included text. My mail client is Mutt (a worthy
successor to Elm), and has a very nice way of representing included
text (in color or not, depending on what device I'm using). There is
no need to resort to HTML to handle this function -- and especially
not, I might add, when most users need to be trained to trim included
text to a bare minimum.
> A choice of font (type, size, and color) can give a unique
> representation of a person, just like a voice does.
Yes, it can. It can also allow them to be mindlessly foolish or to
embarrass themself by exhibiting their lack of basic typographical skill.
I think the point you're missing here is that most people have trouble
enough expressing themselves when limited to ordinary text; giving them
HTML to fiddle with will not assist them in doing so and will only allow
them to be even more incoherent than they are already.
> If you don't give a new technology a place to incubate, it will never
> grow, or at least it won't grow on your turf.
HTML has a fine place to incubate: it's called "the web". That's what
it was invented for, and it's doing just fine there -- much better than
it would if misapplied to solve non-problems in the e-mail arena.
---Rsk
Rich Kulawiec
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
