Re: OT: Flamebait: Text vs HTML email - Long message
RE: Why not use HTML in email?
Some very good comments . . . .
I think part of what started this thread was that I had learned several years
agon on this list to send email in plain text; I then assumed that meant that
plain text email should be used everywhere. However, recently I've been thinking
that "formatted text" makes sense in some situations. Shaleh said it well, that
HTML email can "make sense in an enclosed, controlled environment. Open
mailing lists are just a different beast." Ron also helped to make this
distinction.
Nate mentioned that plain text helps anonymity, by refusing to notify the sender
(via cookies, etc) that you've opened/read the message. This can be a very good
thing. He also made the point that plain text doesn't "load ANYTHING that is not
included with the message itself". Craig also pointed out the insecurities of
some HTML-producing/reading products. Nate and others mentioned the needless use of
2-inch high text and other gaudiness in HTML.
Colin thinks colors, er, I mean, colours, :-) and fonts "are useless for
communication on technical lists." I think I might disagree that they are
"useless", but I would affirm that their use may not be highly valuable. Some
value, yes. He also mentioned the bandwidth issue with charts and images (as did
James). I think I'm pretty much agreed now that, at least on a public mailing list, such
things are better handled as attachments or as links to web sites (probably the
latter, in deference to those folks with slow or expensive links). He also
thinks textual structure is easily accomplished with plain text. Perhaps any
disagreement that I might have on this point is a lack of knowledge/experience
in knowing how tabs and spacing will look on various platforms, and etc, when
I'm trying to do an outline or something similar. I'm undecided on this issue,
but will of course defer to the accepted practice of text only on public mailing
lists. Colin also believes plain text forces people to think about their content
rather than the style of that content. I'd definitely agree that that's the case
with "newbies" (not Debian, or Linux newbies, but newbies to writing
electronically); I'm not so sure it applies to more experienced writers. Still,
if the rule is "text only", then you don't have to worry about the fluff
generated by newbies.
James asked "What can be expressed in HTML that can't be expressed as well, if not
better, as an attachment?" The first thing that popped into my mind was multiple
colours for quoting. Yes, yes, the > and >> and >>> suffice, but I think a case
could be made that red for one person's quotes and blue for another's and black
for a third's is more easily picked up by the brain. Note that I'm not saying
it's expressed vastly better than plain text, but that a case could be made that
it is expressed better.
James and several others made the very important point that in regard to
bandwidth expenses, "less_of_an_issue != no_issue". You folks are right; it's
easy to forget that not everyone has decent bandwidth, and I apologize for
forgetting that and taking my bandwidth for granted. Hopefully your situations
will improve soon.
James also thinks that the use of HTML is because "people are tremendously
lazy." And like others he mentions that HTML is easily abused. He also claims
that information flow could be increased by the use of using text only, because
of lower bandwidth requirements. So long as bandwidth is an issue, I'd agree. So
on a public mailing list, yep, text only. In a private LAN, HTML might be fine.
He also asks why text-only mail readers should be able to read HTML. Simple,
because HTML mail is sent.
Ron asked me to set my Mozilla mailer to wrap at 72 columns. Interestingly, it
is. Anyone want to help me diagnose what's going wrong? Ron also mentioned that
lynx doesn't support HTML particularly well, so my example of using it is
flawed.
Micheal had all this ugly stuff in his message, like "</p>" and "<p style=blah
blah>", messing up his message. I wonder what that's all about . . . . :-)
Seriously, he points out that the ASCII text in books has done us fine for
generations. Makes me wonder if the Swimsuit Issue of Sports Illustrated would
do well in ASCII format? In other words, there's a time and a place . . . .
Shaleh more specifically said that "plain text also forces a common ground",
which I think goes along with what Micheal is saying.
Grant corrected my mistake of calling HTML "graphical"; it's a markup language.
Point noted. He also, like others, pointed out that much HTML that is produced
is "utter crap".
Ben's phrase that "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" is often a valid rule of
thumb. It can also lead to stagnation. Which takes me back to my original post:
question the status quo, question authority, ask why things are the way they
are. He also agreed with Colin's point that plain text can lead to brevity.
Whereas this can be the case, I'd counter that the added information in
HTML can lead to brevity. It can go both ways, depending on the situation.
Paul "heartily reject(s) the assertion that there is more information in an HTML
email than in a text email", and then goes on to say that this stuff is already
in the man pages, implying that the Debian list is all that counts in the email
world. This highlights my original mistake of making the distinction
between public mailing lists and email to grandma (that several have pointed
out). I think Paul is making the same mistake I did, only in reverse. However,
he does agree with others, and with me (fully now, whereas before I was
questioning), that text only is the appropriate format for public mailing lists,
or at least for Debian User. Paul also claims that all his HTML mail is spam. I
guess he never gets email from my grandma . . . . Or, no wait, Grandma is a
spammer! Ahh-h-h! I'll fix her little red wagon. :-)
All in all, a lot of good comments, and I really appreciate the well-thought out
posts (and especially the lack of flaming! thanks!).
In summary, HTML is fine in some cases, but on public mailing lists, use plain
text. Text decreases bandwidth, tends to force substance over splash, is more
accessible to blind folks, text bots, text-only readers, contributes to
privacy, is less obnoxious, and functions just as well as HTML, without the
flaws of HTML, so if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Thanks again everyone!
Kent
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: