> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
> Behalf Of Peter Kirk
> Sent: Friday, May 28, 2004 4:29 AM
> To me the answer to this argument is simple: plain text is
> intended to
> communicate semantic content only, not visual form. If Sally
> is sending
> material to Latisha as plain text, with no markup, she should
> not have
> any expectations about what the result will look like - only that its
> semantics will be preserved, which they will be as her
> Phoenician words
> are still meaningful with square Hebrew glyphs (that is how many
> scholars represent Phoenician text).
Is the distinctian between Phoenician glyphs and modern Hebrew glyphs semantic? That is essentially the question that we have been debating for two months, give or take. You are simply taking sides here, not exploring the issue.
> And it would have worked with HTML e-mail, as long as Latisha had the
> same fonts installed as Sally. This does not take more work
> to prepare.
Debatable. However, for mailing lists, there exist strip-bots that remove all HTML and/or RTF markup. With increasing problems with email borne viri and vulnerabilities in/due to HTML, the prospect of increased strip-bot activity is very real. HTML is, as it is has always been, not a fix-all.
/|/|ike
