On 25 Jun 2000, at 14:34, Alan S. Harrell wrote:
> Don't we all have a responsibility to show them that their desire to
> use HTML in e-mail is largely a brainwashing attempt by the commercial
> element of the Internet in order to present more dynamic ad
> presentations?
You're just wrong. Period. Nearly from _day_one_ folks have been
dissatisfied with "plain text" and wanted more -- real fonts, formatting,
footnotes, images, etc. BBN fooled with a form of that when email was
barely out of diapers [was it "Scribe"? I can't remember now], there was
some IEEE standard for that stuff, and there have been half-a-dozen other
"shots" at nicer-than-text email over the years.
I happen to think that HTML is undoubtedly the _worst_ of the choices
that I"ve seen come down the pike, but to think that there's not a
_genuine_ and reasonable desire for "more than ASCII" is, IMO, myopic.
> ... We all understand that HTML in e-mail does not in any
> way improve the actual content of the message.
Well, you're playing with words here a bit, talking about "actual
content". Granted: if you have something worthwhile to say *IN*TEXT*,
then the import of your words will largely transcend the formatting [or
lack thereof], at least for _some_ content. But of course, content *CAN*
be improved with the ability to use different fonts appropriately,
inclusion of figures, etc.
And there is content that is VERY hard to transmit in just-plain-text
that can be quite well served with an well-placed sidebar, or a helpful
graph or illustration. Indeed, I mentioned in another note to this list
[sent just a minute ago] that one reason I *don't* local-line-wrap is
that I get a fair number of equations. In order to kowtow to the
exigencies of "plain text", mathematica will give you equations like:
2 2 2
x + y = z
[and you can only imagine what it ends up looking like with continued
fractions, integrals, summations etc]. THAT stuff would be _infinitely_
helped by having "more than text" [indeed, in the spirit of multipart
alternative, some of the authors stick in a second copy of the equations
in LaTeX so that folk who are reading it in an appropriate environment
[not me, it turns out] can just format it up pretty and almost have a
chance at deciphering it
Even just *reading* "plain text' isn't so good: fixed-with fonts, while
we compugeeks are mostly used to them, are a fairly marginal compromise
[fat i's, skinny w's] compared to "decent" fonts
Altogether, there's a *LOT* of sense to going beyond 11-point-Courier-72-
char-line email...
> All modern, popular e-mail clients now come with HTML capability. The
> newcomer to the Internet almost always see's the point of view of the
> big commercial interests, first and foremost. When they get to us,
> they are often already brainwashed or deceived into thinking that HTML
> belongs in e-mail.
See, that's where we differ --- I've seen DECADES of folk "come to email"
and in every case they mostly *HATE* "all Courier all the time". Ever
since we moved beyond lineprinters/spinwriters for our documents and got
laserprinters, folks got used to reading [and writing] using real fonts,
standard printers conventions [imagine, using actual _italics_ for
emphasis, instead of underscores..:o), not to mention *BOLDFACE* instead
of all-caps to make something stand out, nor having superscripts and
subscripts or the occasional graph or even a real footnote] There's
actually _real_information_communications_ reasons in all of those
printing conventions that we plain-ASCII folk snub our noses at...
> ... It often becomes a kick in the head for them to
> learn the grim realities of the Internet. Our job is to
> parenthetically kick them in the head and teach them the realities of
> the Internet.
Well, perhaps --- YOUR "reality of the internet" is to stay resolutely
rooted in the world of model-33-TTYs, VT100s, and lineprinters.. Note
that I'm arguing devils' advocate here, since I'm a staunch ASCII-only
guy and I, too, hate HTML email... The reason I'm pushing back is that
your arguments about anti-HTML are, IMO, *wrong*...
And your vitriol, which I actually find more than a little bit bizarre,
about 'commercial interests' just flies in the face of reality, *LONG*
term [like decades-long] reality, and indeed is at odds with
*everything*else* about the internet, except those two bulwarks of the
RFC822 past, email and news. I think that in this day and age, *NO*ONE*
[perhaps with you excepted] would actually opt for unformatted-plain-text
if there was a reasonable alternative.
> I agree with you. For those whom think HTML mail is "behind the curve"
> I might point out that HTML mail is closer to reactionary caveman
> drawings as a means to communicate.
You might, but you'd be wrong. HTML is a *lousy* 'markup' language, but
it is lightyears beyond "plain text"...
> .. Text e-mail, on the other hand, is
> the written word of modern times and in human communications, that has
> far more power than pictures.
This is just crap: text email is a *SUBSET* of formatted email, and so
anything you could do with plain-ASCCI you could do in HTML or RTF or EPS
or PDF.... what you *can't* do in plain text is make use of any of the
information/communication enhancements that make text easier to read,
easier to apprehend, etc.. the stuff we've *learned* about document
presentation over the last 500 years ... It is -plain-text- that's
really the 'throwback'.
/Bernie\
--
Bernie Cosell Fantasy Farm Fibers
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Pearisburg, VA
--> Too many people, too few sheep <--
