On 5 Jul 2002, at 16:42, Thomas Gramstad wrote: > On Fri, 5 Jul 2002, Nicolas Brouard wrote: > > I like html and prefer to use mails in html mode instead of > > reading attached documents. > > Actually, there are many reasons to avoid HTML in E-mail; > http://www.efn.no/html-bad.html
This isn't the place to engage in a side thread on HTML email, but I'll just mention that "plain text" email is really the wave of the past. Almost from the day email was born, a *LOT* of folk didn't like 'plain text'. The programmers, who were pretty used to plain text for source- code, were pretty comfortable with plain text, but few others were and the quest for something better began almost from the outset. Over the decades, there have been a score or more schemes for doing better-than-plain-text email, and I will freely admit that HTML is without doubt the very worst of the alternatives that I've seen go by. But as we all know, for a lot of things the choice isn't made by geeks selecting the "best" choice, but by the marketplace/users gravitating to what fancies them, and for good or ill, HTML has gotten what I think is an unshakable foothold. Better than trying to pretend it is still 1975 and everyone is using VT100s would be to find ways to make HTML *better* as an email encoding [e.g., fix listservs to accommodate it]. Arguing that email [and usenet] should be singular among essentially EVERY other communication channel and stay firmly rooted in the VT100 era strikes me as shovelling against the tide. /Bernie\ -- Bernie Cosell Fantasy Farm Fibers mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Pearisburg, VA --> Too many people, too few sheep <--
