On Sun, 19 Aug 2001 17:40:03 -0400
Bernie Cosell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "normal folk" [perhaps even many of you] use 'fancy' text for
> essentially everything _else_ they do...
ObAdmission: I don't. I'm a plain text guy, not that that changes
your argument.
> ... 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.
ObCaveat: I dissallow HTML on my lists both because I dislike it,
and because of the security and privacy concerns it raises. For
instance, I promise my list members anonymity both to the fact
that they are on or off the list. Allowing HTML would sunder that
promise (think web bugs).
One of my base purpose in running mailing lists is maintaining a
very high data density (which is not quite synonymous with "signal")
across the list posts. I don't in run free discussion lists -- just
focused we're-here-to-get-work-done lists. Empirical observation
has suggested that text/plain either encourages that, or at makes
this easier to achieve. (This is with HTML stripping of such
posts).
> 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_.
This is a question of purpose, of what the purpose an intent of the
list in question is. There are cases where rich mail formats are
not distractive to the base list purpose, and there are cases where
it is. As always, its a value decision.
My interest, based on the above for my lists, is to make the
human/mail interface as austere as possible so that the data
transfer dominates, not the presentation mode. Its an efficiency
question, along with the second order effects that has on list
culture.
> It is *WE* who are shovelling against the tide, trying to make
> sure that it stays 1970 forever.
Damned right.
> 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...
I would have voted for [tn]roff or TeX, but that battle is long
lost.
--
J C Lawrence )\._.,--....,'``.
---------(*) /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Oh Freddled Gruntbuggly
