Deryk Barker wrote:
>
> Once upon a time Shawn McMahon wrote:
> >
> > >Hmm.. I'd have to disagree here... In my opinion, HTML should *never*
> > >have been integrated with email. Email should always have been a text
> > >only medium rather than all this colour and font crap that people are
> > >putting in with it...
> >
> >
> > And yet, you used asterixes as the usual crude workaround to the
> > lack of
>
> Small point: the word is 'asterisk', plural 'asterisks'.
>
> > support for bold or italic text in straight ASCII.
> >
> > The purpose of email is to communicate information. When we speak, we use
> > various degrees of emphasis. It's helpful in most cases to be able to
> > convey this in email, and it's crucial in some cases.
> >
> > Without some form of markup language, we have to resort to crude workarounds
> > such as asterixes, all-caps, and the extremely ugly "stick an underbar
> > before and after".
>
> Ugliness is surely in the eye of the beholder.
> [...]
> > A tremendous number of people agree that there should be some kind of markup
> > language established as a standard for email. Every commercial email
> > package supports one or more markup methods.
>
> Sorry, but your second sentence does not either follow from or lead
> logically to the previous.
>
> > If we're going to have a markup language establish itself as an email
> > feature, it'd be very helpful if it was a markup language that was in wide
> > use in other Internet-related places.
>
> Yes, "if".
>
> > I think you'll agree that there is no markup language that is more
> > associated with the Internet than HTML.
>
> Agreed.
>
> > HTML is a standard markup language. It's easy to implement support for it.
> > HTML interpretation code exists for every platform that connects to the
> > Internet. Even Microsoft and Netscape agree on HTML as a good compromise
> > markup language for email.
> >
> >
> > It really comes down to this:
> >
> > You're either in favor of HTML markup in email, or you're not in favor of
> > email being a very rich method of communication compared to speech.
>
> Oh really? And I say that I *am* against HTML in email and I am in
> favour of email's being a rich method of communication?
>
> >
> > I don't think we should tolerate email remaining in it's outmoded old form
> > when there's such an easy way to increase it's utility for
> > communication.
>
> As far as I'mn concerned, adding bloody HTML tags makes the mail
> *harder* to read and certainly doesn't increase its
> comprehensibililty.
That's because you're not supposed to read the raw HTML source, you're
supposed to read the formatted output like a web browser makes.
>
> > Sure, there will be idiots who insist on using colors and tiny font sizes,
> > but it's trivial to ignore them and they'll grow out of it.
>
> Oh trivial is it?
>
> > Being opposed to HTML in email is a lot like being opposed to X-Windows.
>
> Apart from the fact that MIT specifically ask us *not* to call it
> X-Windows.... this is total and utter nonsense.
--
Kenyon Ralph
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://home.san.rr.com/ralphs
ICQ: 8552071
--
PLEASE read the Red Hat FAQ, Tips, Errata and the MAILING LIST ARCHIVES!
http://www.redhat.com/RedHat-FAQ /RedHat-Errata /RedHat-Tips /mailing-lists
To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe" as the Subject.
