* On 2007.02.01, in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, * "Rado S" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Are you serious about option 1? > > Why not? > > Generally it's good to have visual aids. > However, the implementation varies, and I prefer a simple data > format that works even without a dedicated visual aids interpreter > (human readable): i.e. the way of aiding is not stored in the data > itself but left up to the reader (the original www idea). > A tool can perform its beefing-up well enough on this simple/ > raw data, too, as mutt and other MUAs show.
I agree with you, and I prefer that too, and from his post I think Marc is in our camp. But most people don't care that much, as long as they can tell the difference in their way, and most people don't want to deviate too far from whatever happens by default. Trying to persuade them otherwise often just makes one seem... well, too interested in telling others how to work, to put it gently. Although I'd love for everyone to work my way, telling them that they should usually doesn't work out very well. This argument must be taken up with developers, not users. -- -D. [EMAIL PROTECTED] NSIT University of Chicago
