On 08 3 2005 at 8:02 pm -0500, Mikael Byström wrote: >Ben Kennedy said: > >>the established norms upon which the Internet (and the >>protocol in question) has been based for several decades > >meaning? >Must norms always be static and prevent natural evolution?
Meaning that just because you or someone else might decide that it's time for a norm to change, that doesn't cause any magic, unless the community as a whole decides to. That's what RFC's and standards are precisely for: ensuring interoperability in a consistent way. In other words, just because someone feels that HTML is holier than plain text gives him no soapbox on which to deprecate my embracing of the latter. >While I'm fine >not sending HTML messages, it seems unavoidable in the long run. I fail to see how it is unavoidable... I don't feel myself being cajoled or pushed into putting hypertext into my e-mail messages. I don't feel myself slipping into listening to crap radio either... "while I'm fine not listening to Britney Spears, it seems unavoidable in the long run". What a strange attitude. >Also, now we have CSS so HTML messages could be more controllable than ever. Sure, they could. We also have nuclear power so the energy crisis could be more controllable than ever, too. (We also saw candidates other than George Bush... etc.) -ben -- Ben Kennedy, chief magician zygoat creative technical services 613-228-3392 | 1-866-466-4628 http://www.zygoat.ca
