Re: [tlug] VT100 Display Capability in Email (Re: Rendering HTMLEmail)

[bruno raoult <bruno@example.com>]

Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
>     bruno> The big difference I see is that we often tend to assume we
>     bruno> know the "true path".
> 
> In this case, I do.  ;-)

In this case I will *never* do ;-)

>     bruno> In this sense, even my father is more correct, as he will
>     bruno> simply say that he "prefers HTML". I prefer the second way
>     bruno> of speaking.
> 
> "De gustibus non disputandum."  As a matter of religion, I do not
> argue with people's tastes.  Nobody is saying your father's preference
> is wrong; we're saying he should not have to use HTML to get his needs
> served, and a world in which people like him prefer HTML is bad for
> everybody.

You *say* he is wrong. It is bad only for you... if 80% or 90% of people
 accept his emails, I don't understand the "it is bad for everybody"
statement. Maybe some 10% Ayatolas refuse them. Who cares?

>     bruno> Said this, I can hardly say "accept my emails, I will
>     bruno> refuse yours".
> Of course not.  Nobody is advocating that.  What Godwin says is
> "here's plain text; if you want me to see your mail, don't send HTML,
> send plain text." 

Again, you say that *your* taste is the *right* one... No religion here,
but you show yours.

> True, I could use a mailer that allows me to conveniently read HTML,
> and even .doc.  That's not the point.

It could be, no?

> The point is that I, and many
> people, not to mention daemons and other programs, often have need to
> do things with mailed documents that Wart and Thunderburp and Screwdora
> and Outhouse and ILLmail and Ebola-lution simply cannot address.

We are just speaking about exchanging messages between people. This is
the meaning of email. If some daemons cannot understand human language,
I don't think we need to adapt to them. This should be the contrary.
And of course, we send generally nice format to these daemons, as we
know how the program runs - we made them!  ;-)

>     bruno> Except if another format comes with more possibilities
>     bruno> (bold, fonts, colors, etc...).
> If I were using the GUI, I could show you what
> _This_ is a *very* interesting and informative thread. :-)

Nice try. Where "*" is better than "<strong>"?

> If you actually want to do more than that in email, fine, *choose* to
> use HTML or PDF if you like 

I did not say that. Just said that I *accept* as much as I can. You
can check, I never sent anything but ascii to this list...

> What a waste!  For example, suppose that tab key took you to the end
> of the next quoted paragraph, so that people could use the interleaved
> style more conveniently, and the send command automatically deleted
> all quoted text without a trailing comment, so that you can't top-post
> without extra effort?

Top-posting is another issue. As long as Lotus Notes and others will
send you to the top of the message (and keep all headers in a special
format that you can't delete easily), we will have to bare it...
And again, as I said a few months ago, 300 emails a day in the office
make you love top posting (you can trash 90% in seconds).

> Instead Microsoft feeds chocolate to fat kids, so GNOME says "cool,
> let's offer ice cream to the merely chubby".  :-(  No wonder they (and
> their email) all grow up pimple-faced!

Agreed :-)

br.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature