Re: [gentoo-user] No HTML in posts?

[Steven Susbauer]

I think there's one thing that Outlook has done correctly. If you set it 
to compose text messages, the style bars and all that are still there. 
If you click bold or italic, it asks you if you want to compose this 
message in HTML instead. If Thunderbird and other email clients made it 
so easy to switch to HTML when you want it (and not when you're just 
writing a little text message), I don't think it would be as much of a 
problem.

Calvin Spealman wrote:
Going by the same reasons of client differences, one could argue we
never should have extended HTML beyond the first version of Mosaic.
This is insane, of course. Progress is a driving force of technology.
I use HTML to style code samples in my postings, and to add some pizaz
when e-mailing friends. Plug, I enjoy the interface for it in GMail.
If your text-only email client can't even strip out html tags,
complain to the developers, not me.  Progress should not be held back
by the few who think there is any value in plain text. Instead of
everyone keeping track of where to send plain text and where to send
real text, maybe the recipients should take responsibility for their
own preferences.
I will remember to use plain text for this list, but let it be known
that I don't want to and I shouldn't have to. If i knew I wouldn't get
banned for no good reason at all (and it would be no good reason at
all, mind you), I'd turn the HTML right back on. With XSLT styling, no
less.
We've all got our opinions. That's mine, and I know I don't hold it
alone, not even on this list, so at least cut the arrogent attitudes
about it.
On 5/2/05, Dave Nebinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I know people say it, but why?
It's an extreme waste and provides no value.
We're here to post questions and responses, not to create pretty pictures
with colored fonts, etc.
--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list


--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list