Re: OT: Flamebait: Text vs HTML email
In muc.lists.debian.user, you wrote:
> A more graphical format like HTML can convey more information
HTML isn't graphical. It's a content mark-up language, not a
page description language like Postscript.
> (charts, images, textual structure, color, font, etc) than just
> plain text.
Assuming that the recipient has the same graphics capabilities
you do (available colors, screen size, font availability, etc.)
is often incorrect and can result in pages that can't be
rendered in a readable manner.
I've seen people produce unreadable text-only messages too...
> Text is readable on any system; HTML may not be (ie. mutt,
> etc).
I use mutt for e-mail (though I read this group with slrn), and
HTML works fine when the HTLM is decent.
[...]
> 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?
This is a non-issue and has been for years except for the
horrible HTML generated by some MUAs.
> After all, lynx is a "text-only" app that can deal with HTML;
> why can't mutt, etc?
You can.
> If so, then why not use HTML?
Because a fairly hight percentage of the HTML mail I get was
generated by brain-dead SW that produces utter crap for HTML.
It often can't be rendered decently because of font selection,
screen size, or just plain bogus tags.
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! Is this BOISE??
at
visi.com
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: