Re: OT: Flamebait: Text vs HTML email
On Wed, Jul 24, 2002 at 03:18:23PM -0500, 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.
I heartily reject the assertion that there is more information in an HTML
email than in a text email. This list is about stuff that is mostly in the
man pages already, or should be in the man pages soon. If it can't be
communicated in text, we need to re-think the enterprise.
>
> Advantages of text only:
> --------------------------------
> Text takes less bandwidth than HTML.
>
> Text is readable on any system; HTML may not be (ie. mutt, etc).
>
I really like the way mutt fails to render HTML. *All* my HTML email is spam.
Mutt's behavior in this matter is a godsend.
> 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. Bandwidth issues and filesize issues
The kind of extra 'information' that is conveyed by HTML is the kind that
marketers and pronographers traffic in. In the rare case where HTML might
add to a posting to this list, it can be done as an attachment, and
introduced with a text cover letter that explains why the author feels there
is a good reason to use HTML.
For myself, I cannot think of any situation where the help I have received
here would have been better communicated if, for example, it had been rendered
in blue text on a green background.
> 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).
> 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.
>
To me, the most compelling reason to stick to plain text is that it encourages
authors to say what they mean, and disables or discourages muddled thinking.
On a few occasions, I have broken off writing a question to this list because
the act of writing the question forced me to think, and I got the answer,
without egg on my face. (Not many, but a few. :-) )
This is not a flame, just my considered opinion. I really like words and text.
[snip]
--
Paul E Condon
pecondon@quiknet.com
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: