On Saturday, February 8, 2003, 12:15:03 AM, Tim ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>>>>> I am really happy about it. I am not one of those "purists". MB>> One does not have to be a purist to have difficulty reading html MB>> messages in an e-mail client. :) > True. But that's the fault of the person writing the message, not the > tool used to write it. This is a "purist" view in its own way, though. it is idealistic to expect everyone to use their tools properly, seeing as the large majority of internet users have zero clue as to what HTML even is, let alone where it is suitable and where it isn't, or what the difference is between a readable and unreadable HTML. What follows is that tools should make it easy for everyone to generate proper, correct, readable messages, and make it hard to do otherwise. IMO, adding HTML capability to TB is wrong, because it will increase the volume of unreadable HTML email I receive, and it will perpetuate the ignorance of those who start ignorant (we all were, at some point in our lives, ignorant of these issues). <rant> This is going to sound harsh, but if this is what TB's developers are spending their time and effort on, I'm beginning to regret having registered the program. A decision to register is not only based on current state of an application, but often also on the expectation of further development. I've seen TB develop over the years and felt reasonably safe the program was developing into a powerful, reliable, and standard-compliant tool. HTML email is not compliant with standards, and it is suboptimal in many respects (see for example http://www.georgedillon.com/web/html_email_is_evil.shtml). Here's one *very* non-plussed TB user. </rant> .marek jedlinski -- No ads, no nags freeware: http://keynote.prv.pl (KeyNote, PhoneDeck, KookieJar, Oubliette) My operat~1 system unders~1 long filena~1 , does yours? ________________________________________________ Current version is 1.62 | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
