On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 09:31:23PM -0800, Ken Barber wrote: > For the record, I am certainly NOT "autonomously defining" a > standard. It's been an unwritten rule in cyberspace from the > beginning that HTML-formatted email is considered rude. As an > example, I might point you to the following site: > > http://www.american.edu/cas/econ/htmlmail.htm > > Wherein the author states, among other things, that " Dislike of > HTML email is so wide-spread and the drawbacks of HTML email are > so well-known that it may seem surprising that there is no RFC > addressing it directly.... Nevertheless, RFC 1855 ... clearly > presumes that plain text is the standard for email."
While I'm not agreeing with either of you, I would like to point out an error in your argument. I followed your link, but I have a problem with it. First anyone can post their opinions on a web page, but that does nothing to make them valid. Next RFC 1855, if we actually look at the RFC: We see in the first paragraph of the RFC: "This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind." Yet the link you posted and the quote falsely imply that plain text is a standard. Third, you had mentioned that popularity does not define a standard giving MS products as an example. Similarly your own statement counters the quote above, "dislike of html email is so wide-spread..." eventually going to "...presumes that plain text is the standard for email." Cory -- Cory Petkovsek Adapting Information Adaptable IT Consulting Technology to your (541) 914-8417 business [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.AdaptableIT.com _______________________________________________ EuG-LUG mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.efn.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/eug-lug
