Ian Davey wrote:
> Myself wrote: > >>> 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. > > > Absolute rubbish. The web is based upon hypertext, i.e. HTML, so plain > text wouldn't work. Do you always have a problem with logic? You said that because rendering html consistently is problematic therefore mail should not use plaintext (your words "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?"). So, rendering html consistently is the problem. This is not unique to html in mail. It's a problem wherever html is used. Such as a webpage. I point this out. Your refutation to this is that since the web is based in html plain text won't work. A + FRUIT = Quadratic Equation. Doesn't make sense does it? Usenet on the other hand is a plain text medium. > You're also ignoring all the work that goes into making sure that > webpages do work on different browsers, you can't go through the same > process for a missive sent to usenet. > > Plain text web clients (i.e. lynx) understand hypertext, plain text > news/mail clients do not. By definition a plaintext mail client won't understand rich text. If that's your closed universe this entire discussion has no meaning. > >>> >>> 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? > > > Are you claiming that English isn't a valid communication medium? *sigh* Show me where I said this. How > does rich text communicate more easily? Are you unable to express > yourself without brightly coloured fonts? I must be. You keep missing the point in these messages. Magazines, Newspapers and > books have nothing to do with rich text, and are completely irrelevant > to what you are talking about here. Why? They demonstrate rich text communicating more effectively than plain text. That was what you argued against. They have control over the output > and how people access their material, with usenet you have no control. > Only etiquette put into place to make everyone's lives more easier, it's > in place and it works. I don't understand. Explain. > > You've yet to do anything to obfuscate the issue, Um, that would be good wouldn't it? and still haven't come > up with any reasons why your messages would benefit from rich text > formatting. If your messages are that important you'd be better off > setting up a web page. Rich text via email just doesn't work. If it did > you could prove it by doing a nice newpaper style layout with a heading > and three columns of text illustrated by a nice photograph positioned in > the centre of the left column. Should only take a few minutes. > > We're sending plain text messages back and forth, not exchanging > newspapers. Why does there have to be two so wildy opposing extremes? Why presume so? Simple techniques such as bold and bulleted lists make material more efective. An e-mail doesn't necessarily have to be like a full-on publishing design. But then again, I don't care if it is. In fact, newsletters delivered that way are nice. Maybe (part of) this whole thing is grounded in your presumption that rich text mail must always mean multi-frame javascript flash images links webbugs css and/or tables. Maybe all it means most of the time is point size for heads or subheads, bold, bulleted and numbered lists, and indents. I don't care if someone wants to take the time to do something fancier. You tell me? But only in the same font, the same point size and with no text emphasis whatsoever. Better not use any emoticons either. After all, with English we don't need pictures or any other devices.
