Mark, On Monday, October 28, 2002, Mark Wieder wrote in <mid:6813457140.20021028121304@;ahsoftware.net>:
MW> There are several centuries worth of literature that prove the point MW> that not only does text mode not need RTF or HTML formatting, but that MW> often simple text can get the point across much better than visual MW> crutches. I am unaware of writers from other centuries discoursing about the relative merits of textual attributes to convey meaning in electronic media. The twentieth century, however, has produced many reports which indicate (as of the last time I waded in) that text formatting and text attributes convey meaning, and that they convey more meaning in a short span of time than does plain text without layout or attributes. MW> * Actually text supports bullet points quite well. MW> * I can also even *emphasize* certain words, or "quote" them. If MW> necessary, I can even SHOUT. I don't disagree with that. My email, using TB!, frequently uses those devices, as well as the indented paragraphs that TB! makes so easy. The only problems with those are that they are not standard and that they do not look professional. When I need more than TB! can provide, I usually do something in my word processor and then attach a PDF, so it looks the way I want, and is even on the electronic version of my letterhead. But should that really be necessary? A good email program, I would argue, is something that not only enables transmission over the Internet but also enables the medium of the message, within reasonable limits. It the the scope of those reasonable limits that I'm addressing. MW> Most of the "styled text" messages I receive from people are simply MW> the a text message using a different font, i.e., the sender preferred MW> that the recipient see the message in 10-point Times. Well, although that's not really my experience, I don't think there's any harm in seeing a communication that looks the way the sender intended. To the contrary, I would say that, at this stage in our culture, if you are seeing a communication, in a visual media, that does not look the way the sender intended, then you are not seeing the sender's message. McLuhan, et al. MW> There's also the "slippery slope" issue - where would you draw the MW> line? Why stop at bullets, italics, underlines, and bold? What about MW> strikeouts? What about color? Pretty soon you will find yourself MW> implementing HTML just to have tags to support all the different MW> styles you want to include. There might be some decisions that need to be made, but that doesn't turn it into a slipper slope, nor does it have anything to do with HTML. Appearance is not the biggest problem with HTML, and I agree that HTML is not the way to go. As for the decisions on how much enrichment to provide, I guess it's a functionality analysis, how much would be beneficial for the users and the product. I think that tables, bold, underlining and italics would be a sensible package, in that it would not only be very functional but also be set of attributes that generally go together (except for tables). I think color and size variations, and other fancy fonts, are all things that could be reserved for attachments if necessary; but others might have their own views. The fact that a decision or cutoff would be necessary, though, seems like a poor reason not to undertake the effort. -- JN ________________________________________________ Current version is 1.61 | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
