Keith Whaley wrote:
Moz Champion (Dan) wrote:
David Wilkinson wrote:
Moz Champion (Dan) wrote:
Why is HTML 'okay' in RSS but not in email or news? I view everything in HTML (always have) and have no problems.

Because RSS feeds generally point to web pages, and mail or news accounts point to messages.

So? Still does not explain or give any reasoning why HTML is not 'okay' in email or news.

Many don't appreciate HTML in email or news, but that's simply personal taste, nothing more.

I beg to differ with your 'nothing more' statement, sir.

Staying with the html part of the discussion, html is disliked for email and news groups because of the excessive room it takes up, and the length of time it takes to download.

This has been studied and discussed and picked apart and belabored over for years and years. The truth remains, there are STILL many folks who use dialup and not any of the much faster schemes such as dsl ~ and for these folks, they already labor to download 'normal' text, composed of ascii characters. It takes up a lot more room and elapsed time to receive html formatted documents.

Especially for primarily content-laden messages, which get 99.5% of their point across using simple textual characters and NO formatting, why would anyone insist on loading up each message by insisting on html formatting, adding colors and fancy fonts, and symbols?

No, it isn't quite as simple and innocuous as you would have us believe, Dan.

keith whaley

It takes too long? How would you know? You download it anyway.

When you 'see' a message in a newsgroup, regardless if it is written in HTML or plain text, it is still listed in the subject pane. If you choose to read it, it will be downloaded HTML and all. So even if you don't read the HTML, you have already taken the time to download it anyway.

Same with email. If you download a message, regardless if it is in HTML or not, you get the whole enchilada, not just the parts you want or will display. You get it all, warts and all, HTML and all.

Again, if you don't want HTML thats your business, and choice. No complaints there. But in a newsgroup setting (or even an email one) if you want to read the messaage (in plain text or otherwise) you download it all, inclusive of the HTML parts.

Yep, HTML can take lots more time and space than plain text, no quarrel there. And I never recommend sending HTML to some one who has not chosen to receive it or otherwise indicated it is 'okay' to them. But it is 'there' in the message as sent if some doofus decided to send it anyway, regardless if you like it or not.

For example, all those email spam messages, many of which are written in HTML. They are downloaded to your computer before Junk Mail Controls take a look at them. Even if you have your prefererences set to plain text only, the HTML components are still downloaded, you simply never see them.

And again, I was asking what's 'wrong' with HTML in email or news. Regardless if you like it or not, that wasn't the question. If some doofus sends a message in HTML and you either click on it (in a newsgroup) or take delivery of it (email) - you have already taken the time to download it, regardless if you wanted it or not.

Again, I never indicated that it is proper or acceptable behaviour to send HTML if the recipient has not indicated a desire for it, but that is simply being polite. You have still not indicated what is 'wrong' with HTML (other than you don't like it) in email or news.
support-seamonkey mailing list

Reply via email to