On 17/04/10 02:23, Charles E Campbell Jr wrote:
Tony Mechelynck wrote:
On 04/03/10 16:24, Matt Wozniski wrote:
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 10:17 AM, Patrick Texier wrote:
On Thu, 04 Mar 2010 09:54:01 -0500, Charles Campbell wrote:
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
let lastline =3D line('$')
___________^=
____________<br>
&nb=
Please use Content-Type: text/plain;
I think HTML is perfectly acceptable when it conveys extra
information... In this case, it would have been hard to see what was
modified in the test when viewed in the archives, unless it came in a
fixed width font. It's not as though Chip used a garish foreground or
background color, or made the text 20 point...
~Matt
Oh no? Ordinary text in bright cyan on black, unvisited hypertext
links in almost invisible dark blue on black by default, and left-hand
quote marks also almost invisible (and I'm using the same mailer as he
does, though probably with more "standard" colour defaults) and you
don't call it garish? He could at least have left the colours
undefined (so the reader's default colours would apply) or if that was
regarded as inapplicable, set them to something more "ordinary" in
HTML, such as black foreground and white background. (Yeah, I've
noticed there are people who raise the hue and cry whenever "blinding
white" background, as they call it, is used, but white [#FFFFFF] is
the default background in most GUI browsers if you don't change it, so
IMHO it ought not to be regarded as "abnormal".)
Sigh, the only thing that I actively specified was to use a monosized
font. Not to worry; in the future my response to questions that need
monosized fonts will be "that answer cannot be given in this forum".
Regards,
Chip Campbell
Why not just add a warning on top of the plaintext reply: "This email
looks best in a monospace font" or something similar? Or else, before
sending an HTML reply, check the generated HTML code (I think SeaMonkey
can show it to you) and remove any extraneous colour settings?
When I saw that bizarrely-coloured post, I thought it was just an
oversight on your part, nothing to get excited about and certainly not
an intentional choice of "garish" colours -- after all, I've seen too
many of your posts on these lists to think that you would intentionally
choose what would be eye-disturbing colours to others, as did that
newbie poster some months ago who posted (IIRC) in pink on pale blue; my
reaction above was to Matt's "defense" of your choice of colours -- I
think Matt lost an occasion to remain silent, and I guess I did too.
As I said, I've seen time and again that some people defended plaintext
here by flaming whoever had sent HTML "in black text on blinding-white
background", colours which feel perfectly natural to me (they are the
default colours in many GUIs including gvim, Firefox, Thunderbird,
Seamonkey, OpenOffice Writer, and even MS-Word, Internet Explorer,
Outlook Express and Notepad, all four of which I used some years ago on
W3.1); but until now I hadn't participated in that kind of flamewar, and
if such flaming happens again in the future, I'll again leave it
unanswered. What I don't like in most HTML posts is the different font
style, but that could be my own choice: long ago I've set SeaMonkey (and
Firefox and Thunderbird before that) to display plaintext in some
monospace font, and HTML in Times New Roman if it specified nothing
else. I'll leave it that way, because font choices being common to the
Browser and the Mailer are a consequence of my choice in favour of the
Suite concept, and in the Browser I usually prefer proportional fonts if
there isn't a specific reason to use monospace.
Best regards,
Tony.
--
Excellent day for drinking heavily. Spike office water cooler.
--
You received this message from the "vim_use" maillist.
Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
Subscription settings: http://groups.google.com/group/vim_use/subscribe?hl=en
