On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 6:42 PM, Mark Henderson <shadefro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 20 July 2011 11:59, Ghodmode <ghodm...@ghodmode.com> wrote:
> > Okay, so I change my email settings every time I send to CSS-discuss
> > so that it's plain-text, but I have to ask... why?
>
> In case you haven't already noticed, you are going to get *flamed* for
> asking that :-) Much as in the same way if you had asked why bottom
> posting is preferred (and enforced to a large degree I might add).
That wasn't my intention. I sincerely feel that HTML makes email
better. I didn't expect to be the only one, but that's why I asked the
question. It's okay, though... I can take the flames :)
Is that a good comparison? There's a clearly defined reason for
bottom-posting since top-posting breaks the order of the conversation.
There are clearly defined reasons for banning HTML email, such as
irresponsible senders, bandwidth efficiency, and privacy/security
concerns, but most of them don't really seem to be as much of a
problem within this community.
Top-posting is also strongly discouraged, if not forbidden, on most
mailing lists, but HTML isn't.
I'll go with that comparison, though. You are right about the flames
(obviously), but here's how that conversation could ideally go:
Question:
<blockquote>
Why the heck do I need to post in the middle of the quoted text
when I reply to someone's question. It's quicker and easier at
the top.
</blockquote>
Answer:
<blockquote>
When you reply below the question, it's easier to read the
resulting emails from top to bottom and understand the
conversation. If the answer is at the top and the question is
somewhere in the middle, it's difficult to read and understand.
</blockquote>
Final message:
<blockquote>
Okay... Cool! That makes sense. Thank you for answering my
question.
</blockquote>
However, as you mentioned, questions like this never get this type of
answer. Maybe people need to vent their frustrations and questions
like this give them that opportunity?
> > There aren't any contemporary email applications that can't handle HTML. Is
> > anyone using one?
>
> It's not just about clients, but servers also that are sometimes
> configured to reject html when certain criteria are met. On the
> flip-side of this there aren't many mail clients that can't handle the
> configuration of both -- plain text for certain addresses/mailing
> lists and rich text/HTML for the rest, if that's your choice (I have a
> similar setup where some addresses get html and the rest get plain
> text). There is no need to change your settings every time you send to
> this or any other list -- so what client are you using? I'm sure we
> can sort it out.
I hadn't thought about the potential server problems. Still, most
email is HTML. So, any problem with allowing HTML on this list would
also mean a lot of problems with a lot of other emails.
You're right about the clients. I'm using Gmail and it doesn't have a
text-only setting on a per-recipient basis... At least I don't think
it does... I may need to look more closely. My ghodmode.com email is
hosted by Google Apps.
My laziness wasn't the real reason for the question, though.
> --
> //Mark
Thank you.
--
Ghodmode
http://www.ghodmode.com/blog
______________________________________________________________________
css-discuss [css-d@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
