Quoting Robin Laing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Randomthots wrote: > > mark wrote: > > > ***** > > > > There's an aspect to all this that I believe a lot of people who hate > > > html-mail, such as yourself, are missing. I believe that the > "attachment > > to e-mail" paradigm actually serves to fortify the MS file format > lock-in. > > > > Consider that html is actually a fairly poor file format for complex > > layout; it's essentially all based on the abuse of tables. So when > > someone wants to transmit a complex document via e-mail the only > viable > > choice is to attach a file -- generally a binary file. Even an ODF > file > > is binary as it sits on your hard drive (try opening a zip file in a > > text editor sometime). > > > > So if you're forced to attach a binary file to an e-mail, which type > of > > file are you going to use? Probably the type that is most likely to be > > > usable on the other end. Now this generally means either an MSO doc, > > xls, or ppt, or a pdf. We would like to make that ODF but it's going > to > > be an uphill battle. > > > > Now consider that ODF is a much richer format than HTML. And being > > similar to HTML, there is no technical reason (that I see, anyway) > that > > the format couldn't be adapted to eventually replace HTML. This would > > > include usage in e-mail. The main adaptations would be that the XML > > would have to remain uncompressed and then the individual files which > > > make up the document (content.xml, manifest.xml, etc.) would comprise > a > > sort of multi-part MIME message. The result would be that the complex > > > document that previously had to be transmitted as an attachment could > > > now actually BE the e-mail, the BODY of the e-mail. > > > > When browsers and e-mail clients are developed that can render such a > > > beast then the scales will tip toward ODF being the MOST CONVENIENT > > means of storing, handling, and transmitting documents. Binary formats > > > will be considered a PITA to deal with, even by the technically > > illiterate. And since ODF is an ASCII format, it will be that much > > harder to distribute viruses that way. > > > > Yeah, it's a long chain of if's, and it won't happen overnight if at > > all, but it's something to consider.
It's something I've started thinking about as well. ODF is a markup format as well as a file format; it should be relatively easy to write a format that mimics the traditional email format and is readable by any clued-up mail clients. One could even write a letter template that keyed directly into such an email format. Unfortunately we are dealing with a "competitor" that is likely to read this email list and notice that some people have already worked out how to get a "rich text" email client; and then patent the stolen stuff as if they were the ones who came up with it. Anyway, that's what I've been thinking. Take it with a pinch of salt, the bigger the better. Wesley Parish > > > > This is the best answer to the inclusion of email features within OOo. > The usage of ODF as a standard base. How do we push this forward. > > FWIW, I have my mail program configure to view as text and not load > images, to many 1x1 address confirmation images for my liking. It is > a pain with some messages but it is handy. > > For formatted text, I prefer pdf attachments. > > Robin > > ----------------------------------------------- ---------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > "Sharpened hands are happy hands. "Brim the tinfall with mirthful bands" - A Deepness in the Sky, Vernor Vinge "I me. Shape middled me. I would come out into hot!" I from the spicy that day was overcasked mockingly - it's a symbol of the other horizon. - emacs : meta x dissociated-press --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
