It didn't occur to me that such a policy would follow the vim
list when it became hosted on web-enabled group host'er like
google-groups.
I'm not sure how the text you include below is insulting. It
was meant in truth. If you are unable to read my HTML posting,
rendered in HTML, I felt you would be deprived, as it was well formatted
and I spent a large block of time over 3 days composing it.
I DID, despite the comments of those ignorant of email structure,
post it in plaintext as well as in HTML.
I *felt* that those who read the plain text version were deprived.
(Using the hyperbole of them being in a electronic 3rd world
that only has tty terminals to display text, instead of monitors
that can display proportional fonts).
How is it that, "my" feeling, that someone who is reading "my" email,
only in plaintext, when I put such effort into the HTML formatting, is
insulting?
The plaintext version comes *first* in the email. Those who read the
email in HTML, CHOSE, to do so. How is that *my* fault?
In T-Bird, and *even* MS-Outlook, you can configure email reading
to only look at the plain text portion of messages. If you choose to
let emails be displayed, then it is your *choice* to do so. This is what
the RFC standards are for -- they have alternate parts for alternate display
devices.
How was it decided that the list policy would ignore or not allow for
RFC standard email?
Perhaps that decision needs to be re-examined?
And -no-, I'm not saying you open the door to flash-enabled players or
embedded music, or animations. Well, I could see embedding a video
of how a user wants a Vim feature to work or even a 'howto use VIM',
video, and how simple the GUI is to use...or something similar, but it
would be an exception to the rule -- I always have "no-script" and
"ad-block" running by default -- even hacked them to install in T-bird
after I installed a -web-browser extension in T-bird. This stuff isn't
rocket science -- Tbird blocks remote images unless you allow them
and blocks scripts as well. It's been in 'one form or another' since
the mid
80's.
Maybe I'll get time to get to some other responses -- but this email isn't
the venue... (it would too easily be missed).
-l
Glen Pfeiffer wrote:
> On Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 07:58:03PM -0700, Linda W wrote:
>
>> (If you can't read this *_in HTML_*, you are deprived, and
>> maybe, in the internet "3rd world", my condolences, as
>> documents structure can't be properly represented in plain
>> text, (unless your eyes have built-in XML/HTML or LaTeX code
>> interpretation).
>>
>
> Not only did you ignore the list policy, but you insulted those
> who created it, follow it, and like it. That doesn't seem like a
> very intelligent way to go about it.
>
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message from the "vim_use" maillist.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
