David On Mon, Jul 31, 2023, 4:22 PM Grant Edwards <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2023-07-31, Kusoneko <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Jul 31, 2023 13:52:25 Grant Edwards <[email protected]>: > > > >> On 2023-07-31, Kusoneko <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Don't get me wrong, I'm "team plaintext" all day every day but I'm not > >>>> going to make my life more difficult on principles. There are hills > >>>> worth dying on but this isn't mine. > >>> > >>> Iirc, you can setup mutt to open html emails either in a web browser > >>> or with something like w3m. > >> > >> Wait -- those are web engines. I thought the argument was that mutt > >> didn't need a web engine. If that was the case, then you would have no > >> need to set up mutt to use them to display HTML email. > > > > Why would you want a mail client to also be a web browser when you > > already have a web browser to do that job? > > I don't want a mail client that's also a web browser. I want a mail > client that renders HTML. That's only a small small of what a web > browser does. Most of what a web browser does these days is provide an > environment in which to run JavaScript. > > > I will never understand the mindset of trying to include web > > browsers into everything. Web browsers are massive pieces of > > software, including one in everything massively increases the > > compile time and resource usage of the software it's added into. > > That's because they do a lot more than just render HTML. > > >>> There's no need for a web engine in a mail client when you have a > >>> perfectly workable web engine in the browser. > >> > >> Composing HTML also e-mails requires a web-engine. Sure, you can do > >> that using emacs, markdown mode, a web browser for previewing, and so > >> on. It's a lot of work. > > > > I don't get the point of composing HTML emails. Let's be honest > > here, unless you're writing emails as part of a company with > > complicated messes of html signatures or marketing emails, the only > > difference between composing a plain text email and a html email for > > most people is unnoticeable. > > I found that not to be the case for the Outlook users to whom I sent > e-mails. I was unable to figure out how to get mutt to generate > plaintext e-mails that were rendered properly by Outlook (e.g. using a > fixed font, honoring newlines and multiple spaces, etc.) in Outlook. > > It's also difficult to get plaintext e-mails to display in a > reasonable way on both a large screen and a small screen > (i.e. phone). I was not happy seeing what my plaintext, 72 column > e-mails looked like on a small phone screen. > > -- > Grant > > > >
