Ian Davey wrote:
> Myself wrote: > >>> And besides, more often than not, html mail contains ugly >>> fonts/colors and is spam. >> >> >> >> Oh well then it must be true. What a terrific argument. >> >> Is there anyone that can state the case? >> > If you're really interested you can do a search on google groups, this > argument has been beaten to death many times. It basically comes down to > that fact that plain text is far more accessible to a large variety of > email and usenet clients. You can't even ensure a webpage will look the > same in different browsers, how on earth can you be sure it'll look fine > in different HTML aware email/news clients? OK following this logic. If that is true and that substantiates the case then all webpages should be plain text. > > I'm sure you'll find it easy to explain why you feel unable to > communicate in plain text and what rich text provides that you can't > communicate already with plain text. Why is it so important that > everyone view your message with a certain font, certain background > colour and font size? It communicates more and more easily. Are you seriously arguing against rich text? Never used a word processor? Never read a magazine or a newspaper? J <snip>
