I expected my email program to include a plaintext copy. I specifically
chose NOT to send it, only in HTML. IT was a conscious choice.
I'm very bad at formatting in plain text. I find it a nearly impossible
task.
Even in college, when others were still using typewriters and dot matrix
printers, I was using troff to generate my papers for classes -- I
couldn't make it work in plain text. You may not get this, but I really
have major problems formatting things in plain text. Hyperlinks?
forget it. Alternate fonts or tables? nearly impossible. Sorry, but
you are wrong. I did choose and DID include a plain text copy. But the
structure it came up is about as well as I've done in the past.
But that's also the beauty of HTML with CSS style sheets, if you don't
like my formatting, you can use your own formatting and make it look
however you want. You can't do that with plain text without editing the
content.
-l
bill lam wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Sep 2009, Linda W wrote:
>
>> I DID, despite the comments of those ignorant of email structure,
>> post it in plaintext as well as in HTML.
>>
>
> No, you didn't. You did not take time to format a plain text message.
> It was the Thunderbird (mua) that automatically rendered the html into
> plain text and it rendered it badly, eg. it could not render tables.
> This is not a complaint to thunderbird because that is not its
> primary duty. It is even acceptable if mua just make up a message
> saying "There is a html attached." as the plain text portion.
>
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message from the "vim_use" maillist.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
