Pratik wrote:
> On 01/22/02 10:56 AM, Myself wrote: > >> >> Pratik wrote: >> >> >>> On 01/22/02 08:20 AM, Myself wrote: >>> >>> <snip> >>> <snip> >> >> I don't see the diff from loading a webpage. But anyway, mail prefs >> like Ximian Evolution has it seems would address this (see other >> message in this thread). > > > If there were a pref in Mozilla to address this, I would be much happier. It sounds like several people would. Advocate for it. > > >> >>> I see the advantages of rich text format. I have composed mails in >>> HTML quite a few times. But at the same time I dont think that one >>> needs to send HTML mails *all the time*. General communication can be >>> done in plain text. I just got a 5K mail that has just 2 lines of >>> text and a 4 line signature. That same mail could have been sent in >>> plain text and it would have taken up 1k of my mailbox and the two >>> lines or signature did not really use (or need) any wonderful >>> formatting. Do you see any reason why that person should have sent me >>> that mail in HTML? >>> >> >> >> Hmm, well let's see. We could ask a mailer to auto-send as plaintext >> if there's no formatting or if size to actual text content is some >> ratio... > > > Do you seriously thing Microsoft will implement such a thing? Nope. I wasn't thinking of them but us. But you make a good point as they account for so many of the clients that access the net. > >> but why bother? In programming some time ago we used to use bits in >> bytes for flags, nowdays we (mostly) don't care. Sure, it saves some >> space but space is not the premium it once was. Higher level languages >> and their ease outweighed the save some space concern. > > > I agree but still sending a 5k mail is just blatant. Using a byte > instead of a bit might have reduced program complexity. What exactly did > the sender gain by sending 5k instead of 1k? And that too for a mail > that did not need any formatting whatsoever. Space with repect to mail > account can still be a premium. Hotmail just gives you 2Mb of space. > Other web based mailer rarely go above 10MB and my previous school just > gave me 25MB of space. Not really talking in GBs yet. It's all relative. We see each others points here. > >> Rich text is easier to use than plain text. > > > How so? How is it easier to use. I can understand it looking good but > how is it easier? In fact I would have to go through extra trouble of > bolding/changing text/colours etc. So there is more effort required to > compose rich text. How is it easier? Ahhh I see. Easier to read, not write. (although the case can be made for writing as well as writing involves reading back - although evidence on the newsgroups suggests that is not done all that often ;-). There's a lot of material on this - rich text is not a new topic. Tschichold's work goes back decades. Nielsen has written not that long ago about bold and bulleted lists for "scannability" of content. > > >> Would there really be a return on the effort to implement a scheme to >> switch to plaintext just because it's a two line message and the >> sender didn't use bold or a bulleted list? I don't know. > > > The problem is that these 2 line messages are much more common that the > bulleted list. > Well then there would be a return - if there were no other factors to consider.
