On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 09:37:04PM -0600, lee wrote: > On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 10:51:05PM +0100, Noah Slater wrote: > > On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 03:37:32PM -0600, lee wrote: > > > > To the best of my knowledge, it isn't defined anywhere. But that > > > > doesn't matter. > > > > The common understanding of an attachment is that it is a file, with a > > > > filename, > > > > that has been sent as a separate item from the message. > > > > > > Well, then most people have a wrong understanding. > > > > This is an absurdly prescriptivist statement. > > I'm not sure what "prescriptivist" means.
Compare the following topics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descriptive_linguistics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_prescription In other words, if "most people" think "attachment" means "X" then, by definition, attachment means "X" - regardless of your personal preference for what it should mean. This is how language works. > > As in, if you did a survey of all the people on the planet, and > > asked them if they had ever saved the HTML component of a simple > > email message, I am willing to bet the number would be under 1%. > > A simple email message doesn't have any HTML components. That depends on what you mean by "simple" - and you have already demonstrated that your definitions are unusual. That is not meant to be offensive, because I can see where you're coming from. Nevertheless. > You probably wouldn't get any valid results from such a survey because > the percentage of people who wouldn't know what you're talking about > would be too high. I think that would probably support my thesis. Heh. Best, -- Noah Slater, http://tumbolia.org/nslater
