On 5/29/12 6:52 PM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 9:28 AM, Jean-Claude Dufourd ><jean-claude.dufo...@telecom-paristech.fr> wrote: >> On 29/5/12 17:56 , Julian Reschke wrote: >>> >>> On 2012-05-29 16:53, Glenn Maynard wrote: >>>> >>>> On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 9:22 AM, Arthur Barstow <art.bars...@nokia.com >>>> <mailto:art.bars...@nokia.com>> wrote: >>>> >>>> * Messages should be encoded usingplain text >>>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plain_text> >>>> >>>> >>>> No, messages should have a plaintext *version* (MIME alternative). >>>>It's >>>> common and useful to use HTML messages, especially when posting about >>>> actual spec text, where being able to use italics and bold is >>>>extremely >>>> useful. This is quite a relic; I havn't heard anyone make the "emails >>>> should only be in plain text" claim in a decade or so. >>> >>> >>> Emails should only be in plain text. >> >> JCD: It would be easier for me to comply with this rule if I understood >>the >> rationale. >> My perception is that this rule is not relevant any more. >> >> Against this rule, I claim that the readability of replies in text-only >> threads is much worse, unless the replier spends ages paying attention >>to >> text formatting by hand which is not acceptable. At least, that was the >>case >> the last time I tried. > >There are several fairly simple reasons supporting Glenn's point >(Julian's is simple excessive): You forgot an important one: the archives don't support HTML. A great deal of information might get lost if you're relying on HTML formatting to convey your message. --tobie
