Re: OT: Flamebait: Text vs HTML email
Please set your Mozilla "create email" window to wrap at
column 72. That also is "standard". (So that multiple
replies don't cause line to exceed column 72, I keep my
lines to 65 columns, but that's just preference...)
On Wed, 2002-07-24 at 15:18, Kent West wrote:
> This is not meant to cause Holy Wars or dissent. It's just that I
> believe that it's healthy to every once in a while question the status
> quo, to question authority, to ask why things are done they way they are
> done. And after getting an informative email from a colleague in HTML
> format, this issue came up in my thinking, which set me to questioning.
>
> 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.
But down below, you say "use lynx", but charts, images, color,
font, etc all get whacked when using lynx.
> Advantages of text only:
> --------------------------------
> Text takes less bandwidth than HTML.
>
> Text is readable on any system; HTML may not be (ie. mutt, etc).
>
> Text is more easily manipulated with text tools, such as sed.
>
> Non-text may have "issues" in international settings.
>
> other?
>
>
> 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.
I understand that well. At work, I must use Outlook, and so
I take advantage of colors, fonts, bold, underline, etc. We
also all use Outlook: homogeneity is sometimes helpful.
In the wide, heterogeneous world of the internet, though,
stick with standards like ISO-????-? and base64 for transmitting
"rich" data. (Of course, you and your recipient(s) must
first agree on a file format!!!)
> 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).
Big reason to stay with text, especially on mailing lists!
> 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.
>
> Can text-only mail readers (ie mutt) be designed to read HTML messages?
> 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)?
>
> Just questioning; hoping to gain some insight.
--
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Ron Johnson, Jr. Home: ron.l.johnson@cox.net |
| Jefferson, LA USA |
| |
| "The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment |
| by men of zeal, well-meaning, but without understanding." |
| Justice Louis Brandeis, dissenting, Olmstead v US (1928) |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: