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
