Re: OT: Flamebait: Text vs HTML email
On Wed, 24 Jul 2002 15:18:23 -0500 Kent West <westk@acu.edu> wrote:
> As a general rule, members of this list prefer email to be in plain text
> format. Over the years I've tried to adhere to that (and will continue
> to do so). However, I'm thinking that perhaps it's time to rethink that
> "rule". A more graphical format like HTML can convey more information
> (charts, images, textual structure, color, font, etc) than just plain
> text.
All of which can be sent as an attachment, in formats _much_ better suited
to the task than HTML.
> There are indeed good reasons for using plain text. However, email is
> for conveying information, and it seems to me that more info can be
> conveyed with HTML than with text.
What can be expressed in HTML that can't be expressed as well, if not
better, as an attachment?
> Bandwidth issues and filesize issues
> are less of an issue today than five years ago (realizing that some
> parts of the world still live in 1200baud-and-pay-by-the-minute Land).
less_of_an_issue != no_issue
> Text-manipulation may be a bit more difficult with HTML, but surely
> that's solvable.
>
> To me, the most significant compelling reason to stick to plain text for
> email is for those text-only email readers.
Nah, I've yet to recieve, or see, a single HTML e-mail that needed to be
in HTML (see above statements). In fact, many didn't need anything but
plain text. In addition most of them included a plain text version. So,
why the HTML? Simple, people are tremendously lazy. This is prime
example of why I automatically strip HTML content from my incoming mail.
There are also many ways of abusing HTML mail (which spammers are very
keen on) to validate functional e-mail addresses. Sure, there are ways
around these abuses, but the best is to not use it in the first place.
> Can text-only mail readers (ie mutt) be designed to read HTML messages?
Sure, but why should they?
> After all, lynx is a "text-only" app that can deal with HTML; why can't
> mutt, etc? If so, then why not use HTML? If not, does the "cost" of
> abandoning text-only readers outweigh the cost of reduced information
> flow, or is the opposite true (or perhaps it's a tie)?
No reduction in information flow by using text only. In fact due to
reduced bandwidth usage, a claim for increased information flow could be
made.
--
Jamin W. Collins
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: