The fact that plain text even survives as a "relic" from 1970 is a testimony
to the fact that it is still readable, as it will be 100 years from now.
Not so the fancy text.
I have used a series of word processors from Wordstar 3.0 to WordPerfect to
Word, and before that the PDP editor, and other things in between.
Occasionally I go back to 1980s manuscripts and even 1970s data, and I can
still extract and export useful information, for example, if I've hung on to
an old copy of WordStar and have DOS-based computer. But file format
conversions are time consuming, and not guaranteed into the future.
(Likewise, storage technology is subject to obsolescence.) Text lives on.
I would not justify fancy text for e-mail just because we use it for paper
correspondence. This example vindicates text and proves the frailty of
fancy text. If I have to refer back to a letter or try to reuse snippets
from a manuscript that I wrote even five years ago, there's a good chance
that I was using a different word processor and may waste half an afternoon
figuring out how to export or convert. As an example of a useful project, I
am trying to categorize the frequently asked questions in my field of
expertise, which will eventually will be added to a database. For this
purpose, text is a far superior resource than HTML.
If fancy text were being used to convey the message, I would understand.
But the basic goals of readability and communication for most correspondence
are covered suitably by text. The reader can change the read preferences to
what ever kind of background and text is easy on the eyes, and the column
width problem mentioned by J C Lawrence need not necessarily be a problem,
if the sender chooses not to wrap the lines.
Phil
http://earthfire.com
Bernie Cosell wrote:
>
> > I've run into several now that know full well the difference between
> > text/plain and text/html for email, and strongly prefer text/html.
> > (In fact they gripe at me for sending only text/plain). ...
>
> I've mentioned this before but it appears to be a bit of history that
> some of us would like to ignore: There has been a *GENERAL* un-
> satisfaction with "plain text" email for virtually as long as there has
> been email. There have been at least a dozen schemes over the years
> [probably more] for doing one flavor or another of 'enhanced' email. It
> was just a matter of time before one scheme had all the right pieces in
> place. We don't have plain-text email because it is *right*, but only
> because the email-world-at-large hadn't managed to settle on a standard
> for something better, and not for lack of trying or for lack of users
> wanting it.
>
> "normal folk" [perhaps even many of you] use 'fancy' text for essentially
> everything _else_ they do, from memos and notes to letters [both personal
> and business], quicken charts, spreadheet annotations, IM clients, etc.
> Web pages in plain-text are a real anomaly. Altogether 'plain text' is
> really a relic of what almost everyone considers to be a bygone era.
>
> My point is that I think *WE'RE*WRONG* -- the view that the desire to
> have nicely formatted email, in a readable font employing normal
> typesetting conventions, is somehow anomalous and/or that the folk who
> want/expect such a thing are terminally unclued is _off_the_mark_. It is
> *WE* who are shovelling against the tide, trying to make sure that it
> stays 1970 forever.
>
> Now, I'm a *staunch* hater of HTML in general and HTML-email in
> particular, but the fact is that it appears to be the survivor. It is
> one of the worst choices for exhanced-email of the dozen or so I'm
> familiar with, but these things aren't chosen for technical merit. That
> 'HTML' ended up being the format-of-choice for nicely-formatted-mail is
> [IMO] unfortunate, but that *SOMETHING* would come along an become the
> defacto 'fancy email standard' it is a situation that was inevitable --
> there has *ALWAYS* been a push for enhanced email [you old timers know
> that perfectly well].
>
> /Bernie\
>
> --
> Bernie Cosell Fantasy Farm Fibers
> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Pearisburg, VA
> --> Too many people, too few sheep <--
