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
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
________________________________________________ Current version is 2.00 | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
