Re: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?

[Allie Martin]

David Boggon, [DB] wrote:

DB> Am I missing something, or is it not possible for the HTML editor in
DB> v2.00 to be set as the default?

It's not possible.

DB> I was expecting much fuller HTML editing support in v2.00 ... i.e.
DB> HTML default editor & HTML templates.

HTML mail really aught to be composed only in exceptional circumstances.
In those circumstances, manually enabling it isn't tedious. I think
Ritlabs likely supports a similar view.

The problem with HTML mail is its overwhelming abuse. The ability to
make it the default editor encourages such abuse.

DB> I've heard the purists talk of 'bloatmail'/bandwidth issues, but why
DB> is this such an issue?

The default use of HTML mail does increase bandwidth use. If one person
does so it's negligible. When the whole internet community decides to do
so, it's an enormous increase in bandwidth use.

DB> Surely the enormous formatting flexibility available with HTML email
DB> outweighs the bandwidth issue.

In all but a few exceptions, I'd think not.

DB> After all, we're not on the brink of bandwidth rationing, are we?

For many, bandwidth is still a serious consideration in terms of cost
and in terms of download speeds.

DB> I appreciate some of us pay for the bandwidth we use, but text only
DB> HTML emails will use a negligible amount of extra bandwidth compared
DB> to plain text ones. Isn't this correct?

In the main, yes, but there are other problems.

DB> Is it a reaction to the practices of spammers & the influence of MS?
DB> or something more technical?

HTML formatted mail takes away the control from your readers. I hate
when HTML mail forces me to read it with a particular font and font
size. Not to mention that HTML mail is notorious for looking different
from what the sender intended.

There are a lot of past threads looking at this issue of HTML mail.
I suggest running a search for them on the TBUDL archives.

DB> I can make plain text messages look OK in TB! but I'm aware whenever I
DB> send mail that the P.T. usually looks pretty dreadful on recipient's
DB> machines.

Would you explain this further?

-- 
 -= allie_M =- | List Moderator
PGPKeys: http://www.ac-martin.com/pgpkeys.html
_ 


pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Current version is 2.00 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?

[Peter Fjelsten]

David,

On 09-09-2003 12:59, you [D] wrote in
:
D> I've heard the purists talk of 'bloatmail'/bandwidth issues, but why
D> is this such an issue?

Because an HTML mail is at least 3 times the size of a plain text mail.

-- 
 Best regards  
 Peter Fjelsten
 2.00.6 
 Windows XP 5.1.2600 Service Pack 1




Current version is 2.00 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?

[Chema Berian]

Hello David,

On 09/09/2003, 12:59:41 (My Time), you wrote:

DB> Surely  the  enormous  formatting  flexibility available with HTML
DB> email  outweighs  the bandwidth issue. After all, we're not on the
DB> brink of bandwidth rationing, are we?

Some  users  connect their laptops using GPRS Phones, and they pay for
received/sent  packets,  not  for  connection  time.  They *hate* HTML
because  it  increases  their  bills,  and  that  outweighs formatting
flexibility for sure.

-- 
Chema Berian ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Moderator, Spanish The Bat! User Discussion List (GDUTB)
More info Here: 

Using SecureBat! 1.62s on Windows XP



Current version is 2.00 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?

[David Boggon]

Hi Allie,

DB>> I can make plain text messages look OK in TB! but I'm aware whenever I
DB>> send mail that the P.T. usually looks pretty dreadful on recipient's
DB>> machines.

AM> Would you explain this further?


I was thinking back to my Outlook Express days ... plain text messages
looked, well, plain. I either didn't know or didn't care that I could
configure the display font, and the different colours for lines of reply which TB
is capable of was not so in OE, for instance.

Many end users don't know enough/have enough time/have the inclination
to delve into the plain text display settings of their client, and so
plain text messages with fixed width fonts and no bold & italics and
font sizes/colours look very plain indeed beside their HTML
counterparts.


AM> The problem with HTML mail is its overwhelming abuse. The ability to
AM> make it the default editor encourages such abuse.

Hmmm. While some people who use HTML mail may abuse it, it is the
spammers etc themselves who are at fault, not HTML, I think.


AM> I hate when HTML mail forces me to read it with a particular font and font
AM> size.

Well yes, that's precisely my point. TB too makes it difficult for
people to exercise the choice of HTML over plain text, for those
prefering HTML who are also responsible users.

But this is a political issue as well as a preferential one.

Having said all this, if it really is an issue of principle, I applaude
TB! for not selling out. The purist attitude to me does seem a little
groupy, though ... and I wonder how sustainable it is in reality.

-- 

David Boggon

[EMAIL PROTECTED]


Narcissism is a necessary transitional phase during the consolidation of the ego.
  - Eric Neumann


Using The Bat! 2.00 on Windows 2000
Service Pack 4



 




Current version is 2.00 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?

[Deborah W]

On Tuesday, September 9, 2003, 6:59:41 AM, David Boggon wrote:

DB> I don't want to open a can of worms here (or maybe I do) but what is
DB> wrong with using HTML in email? what is behind TB's relegation of
DB> HTML to the backburner?

DB> I've heard the purists talk of 'bloatmail'/bandwidth issues, but why
DB> is this such an issue?

It's an issue for those who have to pay for it. That means those who pay
for internet access by the bandwidth used, or who have a limit placed on
their bandwidth usage by their ISP, or who pay by the minute (because
more bandwidth = longer download times).

DB> Surely the enormous formatting flexibility available with HTML email
DB> outweighs the bandwidth issue. After all, we're not on the brink of
DB> bandwidth rationing, are we? I appreciate some of us pay for the
DB> bandwidth we use, but text only HTML emails will use a negligible
DB> amount of extra bandwidth compared to plain text ones. Isn't this
DB> correct?

An email in HTML is always at least twice the size of the same thing in
plain-text, since it includes both the plain-text version & the same
message with HTML tags. So while it might be negligible for each small,
individual email, it's certainly not negligible for large emails or for
lots of emails added together.

Other disadvantages of HTML:
- HTML slows the recipient's computer - not always noticeably, but it
always does.
- HTML email doesn't work for all recipients
- HTML email can connect to the internet by itself. If an email in HTML
includes reference to external pages, the user's computer will try to
download those images as soon as the message is selected, unless the
software allows the user the option not to do so, & the user has
selected that option.
- The images within HTML can be used to set and retrieve cookies.
- HTML email renders slowly. In some email readers, the page can take a
long time to render. Some people won't wait.
- If you send HTML email to an email list, it may appear on some
systems, or in digests, with all its HTML tags - which makes it
virtually unreadable.
- HTML cannot be forwarded intact.

Advantages of HTML:

- You can put pretty pictures & backgrounds & font-colours in your
messages.

-- 
Deborah



Current version is 2.00 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?

[Marck D Pearlstone]

Hi Dajabo,

@9-Sep-2003, 13:39 David Boggon [D] in
mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] said to Allie:

D> Many end users don't know enough/have enough time/have the
D> inclination to delve into the plain text display settings of
D> their client, and so plain text messages with fixed width fonts
D> and no bold & italics and font sizes/colours look very plain
D> indeed beside their HTML counterparts.

... so, for the (possible) aesthetic pleasure of those (few) users,
you want to wrench the capability from the hands of all others by
imposing your preferred formatting on *their* mail? No fair!

AM>> The problem with HTML mail is its overwhelming abuse. The
AM>> ability to make it the default editor encourages such abuse.

D> Hmmm. While some people who use HTML mail may abuse it, it is the
D> spammers etc themselves who are at fault, not HTML, I think.

That is not correct. The fault lies in the ability to write
over-formatted messages.

It's like Kid + Candy store = dog's dinner.

One man's meat is another man's poison. Just because a puce
background with bright green text and an orange polka-dot margin
looks *great* to "Ian" when he sent the message, trust me, most
recipients are gonna throw up!

HTML was *never* developed or intended for use as a formatting
system for email. It is a presentation system for served pages,
intended for transmission with the HyperText Transfer Protocol
(HTTP, yes?). Mail is simple text intended for transmission with the
Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP, yes?). The fusion of the two
has led to over-use of bandwidth, bad taste and imposition on the
recipient, whose choice it *should* be!

AM>> I hate when HTML mail forces me to read it with a particular
AM>> font and font size.

Precisely.

D> Well yes, that's precisely my point.

It's not. It's the opposite of your point!

D> TB too makes it difficult for people to exercise the choice of
D> HTML over plain text, for those prefering HTML who are also
D> responsible users.

On the whole, no. Most people who write HTML mail do so to impose
formatting and presentation on the recipient. That is already an
abuse of responsibility.

D> But this is a political issue as well as a preferential one.

Not really. The HTTP vs SMTP is political, maybe. The "HTML allows
me to present how *I* want" is a violation of the receiver's right
to "read with the presentation *I* want".

D> Having said all this, if it really is an issue of principle, I
D> applaude TB! for not selling out. The purist attitude to me does
D> seem a little groupy, though ... and I wonder how sustainable it
D> is in reality.

Very. There are enormous swathes of folk that subscribe to the many
"Keep it ASCII" campaigns.

Having said that, I will dive straight for HTML format when I want
to send a map or two and directions to someone. But *never* when I
just have a textual message to write. *Bold* /Italic/ and
_underline_ text is a simple convention, just a couple of keystrokes
of overhead and very clear and easy to read.

-- 
Cheers -- .\\arck D Pearlstone -- List moderator
TB! v2.00.6 on Windows XP 5.1.2600 Service Pack 1


pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Current version is 2.00 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?

[Allie Martin]

David Boggon, [DB] wrote:

DB> Having said all this, if it really is an issue of principle, I
DB> applaude TB! for not selling out. The purist attitude to me does
DB> seem a little groupy, though ... and I wonder how sustainable it is
DB> in reality.

The direction of conventions/standards as these are largely based on
user demands. This is why, despite all the problems, HTML mail is here.

I'm not really against rich text formatting.

HTML is just not the way to go about it. It causes problems and it's not
efficient.

-- 
 -= allie_M =- | List Moderator
PGPKeys: http://www.ac-martin.com/pgpkeys.html
_ 


pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Current version is 2.00 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?

[Jamie Dainton]

Hello David,

Tuesday, September 9, 2003, 11:59:41 AM, you wrote:

DB> I don't want to open a can of worms here (or maybe I do) but what
DB> is wrong with using HTML in email? 

I'm  a  broadband  user so I don't care about bandwidth so it's a most
point  for  me.  Most  people  are never going to be graphic designers
because  they have no artistic ability or colour sense. However, these
people  feel a terrible urge to inflict their eye destroying fonts and
colours  on  me.  It's usually the case that the less ability a person
has  to  choose colours, the more likely their mails are to have them.

I'm  also  terribly  prejudiced against fonts, if you want me to think
you're   a   5  year  old  feel free to use Comic Sans, otherwise use a
businesslike font. It's a pain for me to have to set things up so that
stupid unreadable fonts are displayed correctly.

The  next  point  is the fact that e-mails don't need fancy formatting
99%  of  the  time.  Most  of the non mailing list mails I receive are
devoid  of   punctuation  and  are  usually written in one CASE OR THE
OTHER.  Oh,  html mail, not I can see some AOLer shouting in blue text
on  a  fluorescent pink background. If you mail isn't important enough
to be written correctly, why do you need formatting?

I  know not everyone misuses html mail, but enough do and I can see no
real benefits for it. If you're formatting is so wonderful, convert it
to  a  pdf  and send it as an attachment, then I won't lose any of it's
wonderfulness.

-- 
Jamie Dainton
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Leaders of the world's richest nations meet in Cancun on September
10th 2003. Oxfam is presenting them with a petition to make trade 
fair. Be sure your voice is heard. Sign the 'Big Noise' petition to
make trade fair at: http://www.maketradefair.com/go/join/?p=omf1 



Current version is 2.00 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?

[David Boggon]

Hi Marck,

on 9/9/03 we wrote:

AM>>> I hate when HTML mail forces me to read it with a particular
AM>>> font and font size.

MDP> Precisely.

D>> Well yes, that's precisely my point.

MDP> It's not. It's the opposite of your point!

My point is freedom of choice

D>> TB too makes it difficult for people to exercise the choice of
D>> HTML over plain text, for those prefering HTML who are also
D>> responsible users.

MDP> On the whole, no. Most people who write HTML mail do so to impose
MDP> formatting and presentation on the recipient. That is already an
MDP> abuse of responsibility.

With respect, the way a thing is presented is never usually the responsibility
of the person to whom it is presented. We are always presenting
ourselves and what we do in a particular way, whether we (or anyone
else) likes it or not. The power the recipient has is in choosing to
receive it or not.

This seems like a complex issue, and I appreciate the technical
background to it, but the widespread usage and general appeal of HTML
messaging means it isn't going to go away in a hurry.

The more relevant question, which Allie has just alluded to, seems to
me how we can make HTML-type mailing better, addressing the issues some of
us have raised here.

-- 

David Boggon

[EMAIL PROTECTED]


Using The Bat! 2.00 on Windows 2000
Service Pack 4



 




Current version is 2.00 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?

[Marck D Pearlstone]

Hi Dhrakol,

@9-Sep-2003, 11:03 -0400 (16:03 UK time) Vishal [D] in
mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] said to Marck:

D>>> Hmmm. While some people who use HTML mail may abuse it, it is
D>>> the spammers etc themselves who are at fault, not HTML, I
D>>> think.

MDP>> That is not correct. The fault lies in the ability to write
MDP>> over-formatted messages.

D> I think it *is* correct.

You believe the statement "HTML spam is the reason that HTML mail is
despised" is correct? Surely not!

D> The ability is not at fault.

I didn't say it was. The ability to *write over-formatted messages*
- thus to *use* the facility /freely/ - is at fault, not the
"ability" itself - the provision of the facility. The selective
quote is leading to a misunderstanding. I should probably have made
myself clearer.

D> If someone chooses to take it over the edge, that's his
D> prerogative, and his fault, not the system's.

That's a paraphrase of what I actually said. Although I don't
consider it his prerogative, since his intent is to impose it on me.
There is a responsibility issue there.

D> HTML provides a capability - either use it or abuse it.

The problem is that more abuse than use, when even just the use is
widely unwelcome. Widely? Well, ISTM the truth of the matter is the
vast majority are *completely indifferent* on this issue - they use
OE - it gives them HTML - they use it and have no idea whether they
like to or not. Of those expressing a preference you will find the
majority of them *against* the indiscriminate use of HTML in email.

D> That said, I'm a fan of plain text email myself. Most tasks can
D> be accomplished easily with it and it definitely seems cleaner.

Precisely.

D> Very rarely do I see the need for HTMl mail.

As I have already said, I have had such occasion myself. But that's
one mail in maybe a couple of hundred.

D> The only reason I'd want to do something like that would be to
D> change the font to, say, Verdana which has great on-screen
D> legibility. Nothing outlandish.

I would never do that. The person receiving my message has a
favourite reading font. They have told their mail program "Display
my incoming mail in this way". Note: "My incoming mail". Not "Your
message". Once he's received it, it's his, to view as he considers
optimal. That's the main point that HTML mail (oxymoron) ignores.

-- 
Cheers -- .\\arck D Pearlstone -- List moderator
TB! v2.00.6 on Windows XP 5.1.2600 Service Pack 1


pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Current version is 2.00 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?

[Thomas Fernandez]

Hello David,

On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 15:17:11 +0100 GMT (09/09/2003, 21:17 +0700 GMT),
David Boggon wrote:

MDP>> It's not. It's the opposite of your point!

> My point is freedom of choice

Your choice is costing me money. But I'm still lucky; the days of
paying extremely high prices per minute of internet online time at 33K
modem speed with unreliable connections are finally over, the internet
has become affordable in Thailand. Nevertheless, a mail in HTML is 2-3
times bigger than a plain text mail, and I have got 56K speed on my
modem only recently.

But my friend is in Mozambique, and if his internet connection wasn't
on company cost...

If you send messages only to countries in which broadband flatrates
are the norm, I don't care (except that HTML mails are ugly, and if
there is no formatting on your side, I really don't see any point at
all. And if you choose to highlight in pink with a yellow background,
I won't be able to reply before puking).

But only a minority of internet users has broadband anyway. so why do
you advocate HTML mails?

-- 

Cheers,
Thomas.

Moderator der deutschen The Bat! Beginner Liste.

10. A computer program will always do what you tell it to do, but
rarely what you want it to do.

Message reply created with The Bat! 2.00.6
under Chinese Windows 98 4.10 Build  A 
using a Pentium P4 1.7 GHz, 128MB RAM




Current version is 2.00 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?

[David Boggon]

Hi Thomas,

on 9/9/03 you wrote:

>> My point is freedom of choice

TF> Your choice is costing me money.

And exactly how much extra is it costing you?


TF> so why do you advocate HTML mails?

I never said I did.

-- 

David Boggon

[EMAIL PROTECTED]


The UN estimates that the world's poorest countries are denied
$700 billion because of unfair trade rules.
(source: Christian Aid)
http://kickaas.typepad.com
http://www.maketradefair.com


Using The Bat! 2.00 on Windows 2000
Service Pack 4



 




Current version is 2.00 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?

[Leif Gregory]

Hello David,

Tuesday, September 9, 2003, 11:40:14 AM, you wrote:
DB> And exactly how much extra is it costing you?

The point isn't so much how much you individually are costing someone,
but the collective of all e-mail, and what it costs everyone.

1. Let's say it costs 2 cents for someone to receive an HTML e-mail
   vs. 1 cent to receive a plaintext e-mail. Now let's take someone
   who averages 50 e-mail a day (spam included). Now let's take that
   per year.

   1 year of HTML e-mail = $365.00
   1 year of plaintext e-mail = $182.50

   I can think of a million things I'd like to spend that money on
   rather than HTML e-mail because someone likes cutesy colors and fat
   fonts. Now, I chose 1 and 2 cents arbitrarily, but as we become
   more mobile, and want our e-mail with us everywhere, cost can
   become a big issue. Luckily, I'm in the U.S. where I pay a flat fee
   regardless of how much, or how little e-mail I get on my Cable
   connection. Conversely, when I'm mobile, it costs a *great* deal
   more. Paying $40.00 for 500 minutes, HTML mail gobbles my airtime.

   In the U.S. rates are pretty cheap. In other countries, even their
   home internet access costs them money. Minutes are consumables,
   just like toner and paper in a fax machine, and the reason they
   passed the junk FAX law. When I have unlimited airtime for a flat
   fee, then I might reconsider.

   Now take the HTML mail to a global scale. $365 x millions and
   eventually billions of people per year. Yeah, that's a serious
   waste of money.


2. Most mobile devices have limited space. Why would I want an HTML
   message twice the size of a plaintext one with no value added
   eating up all my available memory.

   Download 10 messages, delete 8 HTML messages, download 8 or 9 more,
   delete 7 HTML messages ad-infinitum.


There's a time and place for HTML e-mail. There are some discounter
outdoors companies that send me HTML e-mail showing their latest and
greatest deals with pics of the items for me to see. I like that, I
asked to receive them. However, I don't need a one line e-mail from a
friend saying they'll be over in an hour with some animated background
image of trees swaying.

   
-- 
Leif (TB list moderator and fellow end user).

Using The Bat! 2.00 under Windows 2000 5.0
Build 2195 Service Pack 3 on a Pentium 4 2GHz with 512MB



Current version is 2.00 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?

[MAU]

Hello Leif,

> The point isn't so much how much you individually are costing someone,
> but the collective of all e-mail, and what it costs everyone.

> However, I don't need a one line e-mail from a friend saying they'll
> be over in an hour with some animated background image of trees
> swaying.

CLAP! CLAP! CLAP! CLAP! Fully agree. :)

-- 
Best regards,

Miguel A. Urech (El Escorial - Spain)
Using The Bat! v1.62i



Current version is 2.00 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?

[David Boggon]

TF>>> Your choice is costing me money.
D>> And exactly how much extra is it costing you?

BBTE> Does it matter? Doing something that you know costs someone else money is
BBTE> rude, even if it's no more than one cent.

I regret the tone of my reply (D) above. Certainly in some parts of
the world this may be a very real issue. I wanted to defend myself
against TF who seemed to be accusing me of costing him money, which I
am not.

My point was that one should look at the facts, and discern the best
course of action to take based on those facts, rather than evoking
arguments to rationalise one's prejudicial viewpoint.

As my last contribution to this thread, I just want to say I have
found the discussion informative, but that I do not wish to be
identified (demonised) as someone who advocates HTML...I sense a lot
of strong feeling on the list about this. I do advocate informed
choice. Since coming to TB! I have been somewhat converted to plain text
myself, and like many who have contributed, find it more than adequate
for most of my mail. It still seems obvious to me that Ritlabs is making a
judgement about HTML in the way it has configured TB!, and if this is
a considered stance based on the principal of the thing, I applaud it
wholeheartedly.

-- 

David Boggon

[EMAIL PROTECTED]


Developed nations constitute only 20% of the world's
population, yet consume 86% of the world's goods.
(source: UNHDR 2000/2001)


Using The Bat! 2.00 on Windows 2000
Service Pack 4



 




Current version is 2.00 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?

[Alexander]

09-Sep-2003 15:01, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> - HTML cannot be forwarded intact.

That depends on the mailer. At work I'm forwarding HTML messages intact all
the time (with Outlook - not that I like Outlook as a mailer!).

-- 
Best regards,
 Alexander (http://www.neurowerx.de)

Dilbert's Words of Wisdom: Last night I lay in bed looking up at the stars
in the sky and I thought to myself,  "Where the heck is the ceiling?!"



Current version is 2.00 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?

[Gerard]

ON Tuesday, September 9, 2003, 8:17:47 PM, you wrote:
LG> There's a time and place for HTML e-mail. There are some discounter
LG> outdoors companies that send me HTML e-mail showing their latest and
LG> greatest deals with pics of the items for me to see. I like that, I
LG> asked to receive them. However, I don't need a one line e-mail from a
LG> friend saying they'll be over in an hour with some animated background
LG> image of trees swaying.

Hi Leif,

Anything can be used in a right and a wrong way. If you receive one line
e-mail from a friend saying they'll be over in an hour with some
animated background image of trees swaying, it has more to do with your
friend and your choice of friends then his email program.

-- 
Best regards,
 Gerard 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
A golf course is the epitome of all that is purely transitory in the
universe, a space not to dwell in, but to get over as quickly as
possible.

Using The Bat! v1.62r on Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 4



Current version is 2.00 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?

[Allister Jenks]

On Tuesday, 9 September 2003, at 10:59:41 p.m., David Boggon wrote:

> I don't want to open a can of worms here (or maybe I do) but what
> is wrong with using HTML in email? what is behind TB's relegation of
> HTML to the backburner?

Well, the can is well and truly opened!

In my opinion, I believe there is nothing intrinsically wrong with
HTML *if*, and *only if* it is used correctly according to the intent
of its designers.

Elsewhere in this thread are mentions of abusing HTML in emails.
Let's face it, HTML is abused far more on the web than in email.

I think everyone in this thread who is supporting the use of HTML in
emails should read the HTML 4.01 specification - all of it.  Then you
will understand that HTML is a /semantic/ markup language.  It is
_*NOT*_ a presentation tool.  And, more importantly, you will
understand *why* this is the case.

If you want pretty emails (if only in your own eyes) then use RTF
which is designed to pretty-up text. It is only the sheer popularity
of HTML (due to the web) and the short-sightedness of popular email
client vendors (and, I suppose latterly, market forces) that led to
HTML emails in the first place.  If you are about to say RTF isn't
supported in emails, you'd be half right.  HTML isn't intrinsically
supported by the SMTP protocol is it?  It's your client that does
things differently.  So you *can* have RTF in emails.

Back to my opening point, if you want to use HTML, then it must be for
reasons of semantics.  There is no old or talic any more, there
is phasis and  emphasis - which the recipient can choose
how they want to display.  Also, s contain tabulated data (yes,
really!) and not graphics that join up, and have () heading and
() data cells.

Now, sometimes, presentation is important.  For instance, when you
want to sell something (oops, did somebody mention SPAM?).  Thinking
really hard, how often is presentation *important* for the contents of
an email that is not SPAM.  And if you can think of a case where this
is so, could it be better handled by posting a web page, or PDF file,
or attaching a PDF file to the email?

If anything, then, should we be asking RIT Labs for CSS support?

Oh, and if you cry 'not practical' to HTML+CSS because of poor support
in mainstream products, that is no excuse.  If everybody didn't bother
because of this, we'd not be as far down the track as we are today.
You *are* the masses.  Go with standards!

-- 
Regards,

Allister.

Using The Bat! v2.00.6
on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 1



Current version is 2.00 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?

[Leif Gregory]

Hello Gerard,

Tuesday, September 9, 2003, 3:08:30 PM, you wrote:
G> Anything can be used in a right and a wrong way. If you receive one
G> line e-mail from a friend saying they'll be over in an hour with
G> some animated background image of trees swaying, it has more to do
G> with your friend and your choice of friends then his email program.

Oh, I absolutely agree with you 100%. Except, when an e-mail
client has HTML e-mail turned on by default, I can guarantee you 99%
of the end users will abuse HTML e-mail. That's a guarantee!!!

I should know, I manage the SMTP gateway and mail servers for nearly
5,000 people in a corporate environment which is based off Lotus Notes
which has HTML e-mail enabled by default. The end users don't know any
better.

It drives me completely insane how many people send little one liners
with big background pics, cutesy HTML fonts and colors. Things like
going away parties, retirement parties, birthday parties, furniture up
for grabs (they usually embed pics of this stuff) etc.. It just
doesn't quit.



-- 
Leif (TB list moderator and fellow end user).

Using The Bat! 2.00 under Windows 2000 5.0
Build 2195 Service Pack 3 on a Pentium 4 2GHz with 512MB



Current version is 2.00 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?

[Allister Jenks]

On Wednesday, 10 September 2003, at 11:39:53 a.m., Sheldon Schuster wrote:

> When did you become a member of the Gestapo HMTL police? HTML is
> not a static entity--it is a dynamic changing standard that changes
> as new user interests and technology develope. Are you still using
> the text based UNIX e-mail of the early '90's?

U.  From the W3C HTML 4.01 Specification: "W3C Recommendation 24
December 1999".  Granted XHTML is around, but that is purely phrasing
HTML in XML terms.  Now, in this industry, you can't get much more
static than that!  What is *changing* is people's _use_ of this
standard.  The only major thing wrong with the original HTML spec was
the lack of a separate presentation mechanism.  That was recognised
and corrected nearly *seven* years ago (CSS 1 = December 1996).

It is really only poor browser technology that has held back the
standards revolution.  Just because graphic tables are mainstream,
doesn't make them right.

And *yes I am* using 'text based Unix email'! So are you!! Where do you
think TCP/IP, POP and SMTP came from?? Under the covers it is still
doing the same thing. It's still there because it works.  Just putting
some HTML in there doesn't change the underlying transport layers.

Elsewhere it has been said this is going quite OT.  I tend to agree.
But then certain moderators are leaping into the fray with vigour.  I
shall continue on-list unless moderated otherwise.

-- 
Regards,

Allister.

Using The Bat! v2.00.6
on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 1



Current version is 2.00 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?

[MAU]

Hello DG Raftery Sr.,

As you may have read a few days ago in a thread with subject "My new 20
lines filter", you better start your text before line 20 or I will not
read any of your messages (provided you care at all if I read them or
not) ;-)


> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Tuesday, September 09, 2003
> 4:23:19 PM (GMT -05:00)
> RE: "HTML as default on v2.00 ...?"
>
> Greetings David,
>
> On Tuesday, September 9, 2003, 2:54:05 PM, you wrote:
>
TF>>>>> Your choice is costing me money.
>
D>>>> And exactly how much extra is it costing you?
>
David>> I regret the tone of my reply (D) above. Certainly in some parts of
David>> the world this may be a very real issue. I wanted to defend myself
David>> against TF who seemed to be accusing me of costing him money, which I
David>> am not.
>

Note to moderators: Top-posting done on purpose so my own message would
comply with my "20 lines filter" after quoting first 20 lines of DG's
message :)

-- 
Best regards,

Miguel A. Urech (El Escorial - Spain)
Using The Bat! v1.62i



Current version is 2.00 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?

[Roelof Otten]

Hallo MAU,

On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 13:13:30 +0200GMT (10-9-03, 13:13 +0200, where I
live), you wrote:

M> Note to moderators: Top-posting done on purpose

I suppose that's even worse than doing out of ignorance. 

-- 
Groetjes, Roelof



Current version is 2.00 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?

[MAU]

Hello Roelof,

> On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 13:13:30 +0200GMT (10-9-03, 13:13 +0200, where I
> live), you wrote:

Hey! Don't the minutes have seconds where you live? ;-)

-- 
Best regards,

Miguel A. Urech (El Escorial - Spain)
Using The Bat! v1.62i



Current version is 2.00 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?

[Julian Beach (Lists)]

On Wednesday, September 10, 2003, 2:49:12 PM, Dave Kennedy wrote:

> The Internet is becoming to be treated in the same manner as
> automobiles. I.e. "I just want it to work and don't care how it
> works."

This fits in quite well with the following bit of research:

-
A staggering one in seven technologically challenged employees needs
help even switching their computers on and off, according to research
commissioned by City & Guilds.

The UK vocational awarding body's study of 405 random UK financial
directors revealed that, despite the fact that PCs have been around
for over thirty years, getting to grips with the devices is totally
beyond many British office workers. A fifth were found to struggle to
save a document, more than one in five need assistance printing, while
a quarter cannot understand a spreadsheet.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/67/32742.html for the details
---

Julian

-- 
  Using The Bat! v2.00 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 1




Current version is 2.00 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?

[Thomas Fernandez]

Hello David,

On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 19:54:05 +0100 GMT (10/09/2003, 01:54 +0700 GMT),
David Boggon wrote:

TF Your choice is costing me money.
D>>> And exactly how much extra is it costing you?

BBTE>> Does it matter? Doing something that you know costs someone else money is
BBTE>> rude, even if it's no more than one cent.

> I regret the tone of my reply (D) above.

Appreciated.

> Certainly in some parts of the world this may be a very real issue.
> I wanted to defend myself against TF who seemed to be accusing me of
> costing him money, which I am not.

You are contradicting yourself. Leif has already quantified it, I will
chip in with my figures.

There are about 41 Thai Baht to 1 US$.

An hour of internet usage used to cost me 60 Baht. The market is now
down to 10 Baht/hr, but that doesn't change the concept.

We used to have 33K/s download speed, now it's 56K on most ISPs,
except my main one.

An HTLM message is on average 2-3 times bigger than a plaintext email,
and I receive around 200 messages per day.

You do the math.

Now let's talk about Cambodia and Mozambique, compared to which the
internet cost here are dirt cheap...

> My point was that one should look at the facts, and discern the best
> course of action to take based on those facts, rather than evoking
> arguments to rationalise one's prejudicial viewpoint.

I am talking facts. What are you talking?

-- 

Cheers,
Thomas.

Moderator der deutschen The Bat! Beginner Liste.

Health nuts are going to feel stupid someday, lying in hospitals dying
of nothing. -- Redd Foxx

Message reply created with The Bat! 2.00.6
under Chinese Windows 98 4.10 Build  A 
using a Pentium P4 1.7 GHz, 128MB RAM




Current version is 2.00 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?

[Thomas Fernandez]

Hello Dave,

On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 09:49:12 -0400 GMT (10/09/2003, 20:49 +0700 GMT),
Dave Kennedy wrote:

> The Internet is becoming to be treated in the same manner as
> automobiles. I.e. "I just want it to work and don't care how it
> works."

That is unfortunately true. See your own message about a certain Ford
model on TBOT.

V>> Many reasons, but I know a lot of people who *like* receiving
V>> messages with fancy stationery.

> Me, too.  That's one of the reasons why I use TB! so that much of
> the HTML nonsense is filtered for me.  That's my choice.  Many,
> if not most, enjoy the background gif of a notebook, the sand on
> a beach, waving palms, on and on ad nauseam.

Send me a message with waving palms on the beach, and I'll blacklist
you... LOL! And then I'll probably suggest you come and visit
Thailand. ;-)

-- 

Cheers,
Thomas.

Moderator der deutschen The Bat! Beginner Liste.

Neulich ist ein Statistiker gestorben. Er hinterlaesst eine Frau und
zweieinhalb Kinder.

Message reply created with The Bat! 2.00.6
under Chinese Windows 98 4.10 Build  A 
using a Pentium P4 1.7 GHz, 128MB RAM




Current version is 2.00 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?

[Thomas Fernandez]

Hello FJ,

On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 10:29:36 +0200 GMT (10/09/2003, 15:29 +0700 GMT),
FJ de Bruin wrote:

MDP>> HTML was *never* developed or intended for use as a formatting
MDP>> system for email.

> You're turning things around here.

No, he isn't. What he says is historical truth. Check google for Tim
Burners Lee (but don't tust my spelling, I get his name wrong every
time).

-- 

Cheers,
Thomas.

Moderator der deutschen The Bat! Beginner Liste.

"Mothers all want their sons to grow up to be President, but they
don't want them to become politicians in the process." (John F.
Kennedy)

Message reply created with The Bat! 2.00.6
under Chinese Windows 98 4.10 Build  A 
using a Pentium P4 1.7 GHz, 128MB RAM




Current version is 2.00 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?

[Thomas Fernandez]

Hello Bill,

On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 19:28:01 -0400 GMT (10/09/2003, 06:28 +0700 GMT),
Bill Blinn Technology Editor wrote:

> I'm one of the let's-avoid-HTML-mail folks, but I know that in those
> instances when I want to send mail that is formatted for presentation,
> HTML is the *only* way I can do it and hope for it to be readable by a
> nearly everyone who reads it.

I agree with this, but the instances when HTML mail makes sense are
rare. Most mails do not need HTML.

-- 

Cheers,
Thomas.

Moderator der deutschen The Bat! Beginner Liste.

Um zu antworten, bitte die From-Zeile mit ROT13 bearbeiten. Danach mit
MD5 hashen, zeichenweise den ASCII-Code um 2 erhoehen (mod 57) und
erneut um 63 erhoehen. Dann mit der urspruenglichen Adresse x-oren.
Schliesslich am Ergebnis erfreuen und so antworten wie gewohnt.

Message reply created with The Bat! 2.00.6
under Chinese Windows 98 4.10 Build  A 
using a Pentium P4 1.7 GHz, 128MB RAM




Current version is 2.00 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?

[Thomas Fernandez]

Hello Dave,

On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 10:04:02 -0400 GMT (10/09/2003, 21:04 +0700 GMT),
Dave Kennedy wrote:

> 1. Acrobat Reader is not as universal as HTML even if it is a
>free download.

It's only the reader than is free.

> 2. Posting something to a web page changes the paradigm from a
>"push" to a "pull." If I have something I need people to see,
>I have to send an e-mail to people (push) and then get them to
>click a link (pull).

I do the same. In the beginning, I used to attach files to email, only
get many bounces: over quota. Now I just upload the files to my
website, send a text message where they can download, and all is fine.

> If someone d/l's their e-mail to handle off-line, it's really
> painful for them.

Most of the people I am talking about use Hotmail and read their mail
online anyway...

-- 

Cheers,
Thomas.

Moderator der deutschen The Bat! Beginner Liste.

THE RED LION pub at Lacock in Wiltshire offers whisky-flavoured
condoms for sale. The small print at the bottom of the machine
advises: "Warning-Do not drive while using this product."

Message reply created with The Bat! 2.00.6
under Chinese Windows 98 4.10 Build  A 
using a Pentium P4 1.7 GHz, 128MB RAM




Current version is 2.00 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?

[Thomas Fernandez]

Hello Sheldon,

On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 16:39:53 -0700 GMT (10/09/2003, 06:39 +0700 GMT),
Sheldon Schuster wrote:

> In my opinion, I believe there is nothing intrinsically wrong with
> HTML *if*, and *only if* it is used correctly according to the intent
> of its designers.

The internet was designed for plain-text emails only. MIME attachments
(allowing HTML) was added much later and under much protest. Check it
out on the internet.

It always amazes me that many people think the internet was invented
by Outlook or AOL 6 or Al Gore...

> Are you still using the text based UNIX e-mail of the early '90's?

Well, yes, *I* am using email. Not Hypertext messages without any
sensible hyperlinks.

-- 

Cheers,
Thomas.

Moderator der deutschen The Bat! Beginner Liste.

No electrons were harmed in the creation, transmission or reading of
this email. However, many were excited and some may well have enjoyed
the experience.

Message reply created with The Bat! 2.00.6
under Chinese Windows 98 4.10 Build  A 
using a Pentium P4 1.7 GHz, 128MB RAM




Current version is 2.00 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?

[Allie Martin]

David Boggon, [DB] wrote:

DB> My point was that one should look at the facts,

Many seem to resist the facts of the matter. :/

We speak about bandwidth, problems with accurate reproducability at the
recipients end, the fact that the recipient is forced to read using
fonts and font sizing that they may not like or literally find difficult
to read. At least in Opera, I can quickly zoom in on text I find
difficult to read, or just use the CSS support to change the text
styles. Not so with HTML mail. You're just stuck! I don't know how much
more facts are needed.

People say HTML is here to stay, and I say, so is crime. Does that make
crime a good thing or something we should all embrace??

DB> and discern the best course of action to take based on those facts,
DB> rather than evoking arguments to rationalise one's prejudicial
DB> viewpoint.

It's not a prejudice. We have practical concerns and unfortunately, it
would seem that the scope and validity of these concerns aren't *really*
appreciated unless one is really experiencing them.

DB> As my last contribution to this thread, I just want to say I have
DB> found the discussion informative, but that I do not wish to be
DB> identified (demonised) as someone who advocates HTML...

I wouldn't go as far as to demonize anyone who advocates using HTML
mail. I do see a place for it but only in the case of a few exceptions
and where the HTML mail composer fully understands the issues and uses
an appropriate client. Some HTML formatted newsletters I receive are
nicely done. However, private HTML mail is usually more a problem than a
solution.

I'm subscribed to a busy mailing list where about 40% of the e-mail is
HTML formatted. I just wish I could have you sit beside me and take a
look at the mail on my monitor and with my resolution. It's tedious to
the point of completely unreasonable to read the HTML versions. Thank
goodness that TB! is capable of always presenting me with a plain text
version.

DB> I sense a lot of strong feeling on the list about this.

Yeah. Because we've had to deal with the problems with it. It's not just
about colour. We do like colours and nice fonts.

DB> I do advocate informed choice.

Indeed. It's my strong opinion, but an opinion anyway, that the decision
to use HTML formatted mail by default, isn't an informed one.

The fact that so many people are using it doesn't make it a good format.

The fact that so many people use Win9x doesn't make it the better OS to
use.

DB> Since coming to TB! I have been somewhat converted to plain text
DB> myself, and like many who have contributed, find it more than
DB> adequate for most of my mail. It still seems obvious to me that
DB> Ritlabs is making a judgement about HTML in the way it has
DB> configured TB!, and if this is a considered stance based on the
DB> principal of the thing, I applaud it wholeheartedly.

Here, here!!!

-- 
 -= allie_M =- | List Moderator
PGPKeys: http://www.ac-martin.com/pgpkeys.html
_ 


pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Current version is 2.00 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?

[Allie Martin]

David Boggon, [DB] wrote:

DB> With respect, the way a thing is presented is never usually the
DB> responsibility of the person to whom it is presented. We are always
DB> presenting ourselves and what we do in a particular way, whether we
DB> (or anyone else) likes it or not.

Hmmm. I usually try to present myself in a way that will not be frowned
upon by others. I don't simply present myself any way I wish to. I have
to consider what will make my audience uncomfortable and avoid those
things if I can. I'm sure you do the same thing and I think this is what
Marck is referring to.

DB> The power the recipient has is in choosing to receive it or not.

Not only that. The recipient should have the power to make the text he
reads, a size that is comfortable for him to read. The recipient should
have the power to choose a font that he prefers to read with. I hear
Jamie saying that he hates Comic Sans. I know others who really like it.
If one of those others send an HTML message containing tags to use Comic
Sans when displaying the message, is that fair to Jamie?  When using
plain text, this is never an issue. You compose with what font you like
and we read your message with what font we like.

-- 
 -= allie_M =- | List Moderator
PGPKeys: http://www.ac-martin.com/pgpkeys.html
_ 


pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Current version is 2.00 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?

[Allie Martin]

Dave Kennedy, [DK] wrote:

DK> That is such a great point! (I wish I had made it. :) )

DK> We techies so often forget that our view of the world is different
DK> than the typical end user.

And you know why?

We are in the know and they're not. :) We know the problems with HTML
and they don't.

They have an excuse for abusing it in that they don't know better. I
usually sympathize and I never really get annoyed with it. I even read
them. :)

It's an entirely different matter to have the problems presented to
someone and they still advocate HTML!! 

-- 
 -= allie_M =- | List Moderator
PGPKeys: http://www.ac-martin.com/pgpkeys.html
_ 


pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Current version is 2.00 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?

[Leif Gregory]

Hello Dave,

Wednesday, September 10, 2003, 7:49:12 AM, you wrote:
DK> The Internet is becoming to be treated in the same manner as
DK> automobiles. I.e. "I just want it to work and don't care how it
DK> works."

*Exactly*!! and Exactly why this is a Bad Thing (tm). When I drive
my car, and if I run over someone, I am personally held liable for my
actions in court. If I use my computer and it becomes infected with a
virus because I like to open every attachment (because somebody said
they love me), which in turn sends nasty little virus laden e-mails to
everyone in my address book, I'm not held accountable except by maybe
one of my recipients.

We as techies have the unfortunate burden of trying to educate the
masses on what is good and bad, and until the day comes where a user
can be held liable for their mis-actions on a machine, everyone
suffers. See:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/961943.asp?0dm=C14MT&cp1=1

and

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A25845-2003Sep4?language=printer


I've cross-posted this to TBOT so we can continue, it's definitely
becoming a dead horse on TBUDL..

Thanks.





-- 
Leif (TB list moderator and fellow end user).

Using The Bat! 2.00 under Windows 2000 5.0
Build 2195 Service Pack 3 on a Pentium 4 2GHz with 512MB



Current version is 2.00 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?

[Leif Gregory]

Hello MAU,

Wednesday, September 10, 2003, 5:13:30 AM, you wrote:
M> As you may have read a few days ago in a thread with subject "My
M> new 20 lines filter", you better start your text before line 20 or
M> I will not read any of your messages (provided you care at all if I
M> read them or not) ;-)

 Somebody is about > <   <--(this close) to being beaten to a bloody
 pulp by three trouts simultaneously. ;-)


-- 
Leif (TB list moderator and fellow end user).

Using The Bat! 2.00 under Windows 2000 5.0
Build 2195 Service Pack 3 on a Pentium 4 2GHz with 512MB



Current version is 2.00 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?

[MAU]

Hello DG,

> Ahh well. I don't feel the need to format my messages based on your
> criteria.

'Course DG! :)

> I quote what I feel is necessary to clearly represent the thread and
> the basis of my reply.

'Course again DG! But it is not just the quoted lines that add up :))

-- 
Best regards,

Miguel A. Urech (El Escorial - Spain)
Using The Bat! v1.62i



Current version is 2.00 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?

[Corne' (aka Cory)]

On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 18:30:16 +0200, Jurgen Haug
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>But a per address book entry setting would be great!
>
>_If someone from Ritlabs is reading my 2 cents: Can't we have that???_

Add to that a per-account (or even per-folder, inheritance selectable)
setting which enables a HTML-on/off -default to off- in the editor.
IMHO, this would do right to the notion of avoiding HTML as much as
possible, and still enable those who need the formatting to fairly
easily choose to enable it.

Simply showing the "enable HTML"-button in the editor would do too,
but that would make HTML a little too accessible ;)
And -I realise while typing the above- needs a huge Undo-buffer also;
if not there certainly would arise complaints about TB! not being able
to support the free choice of yes or no HTML
(Yes indeed, I'm 99% against HTML e-mail.)

-- 
BR,
Cory
(using Forté Agent to follow TBUDL, and who would love to see Forté
and RitLabs team up to combine the best of both products in an
unbeatable mail/news agent)



Current version is 2.00.6 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Re: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?

[Sheldon Schuster]

In my opinion, I believe there is nothing intrinsically wrong with
HTML *if*, and *only if* it is used correctly according to the intent
of its designers.

Elsewhere in this thread are mentions of abusing HTML in email.
Let's face it, HTML is abused far more on the web than in email.

I think everyone in this thread who is supporting the use of HTML in
emails should read the HTML 4.01 specification - all of it.  Then you
will understand that HTML is a /semantic/ markup language.  It is
_*NOT*_ a presentation tool.  And, more importantly, you will
understand *why* this is the case.

If you want pretty emails (if only in your own eyes) then use RTF
which is designed to pretty-up text. It is only the sheer popularity
of HTML (due to the web) and the short-sightedness of popular email
client vendors (and, I suppose latterly, market forces) that led to
HTML emails in the first place.  If you are about to say RTF isn't
supported in emails, you'd be half right.  HTML isn't intrinsically
supported by the SMTP protocol is it?  It's your client that does
things differently.  So you *can* have RTF in emails.

Back to my opening point, if you want to use HTML, then it must be for
reasons of semantics.


Hello, Allister Jenks,

When did you become a member of the Gestapo HMTL police? HTML is not a static 
entity--it is a dynamic changing standard that changes as new user interests and 
technology develope. Are you still using the text based UNIX e-mail of the early '90's?


=== At 2003-09-10, 09:43:00 you wrote: ===

>
Best regards.
Sheldon Schuster
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
2003-09-09

Current version is 2.00 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html