On Sun, May 20, 2007 at 10:58:02AM -0400, Gregory Seidman wrote: > On Sun, May 20, 2007 at 04:07:49PM +0200, Florian Kulzer wrote: > > On Sun, May 20, 2007 at 09:49:14 -0400, Gregory Seidman wrote: > > > On Sun, May 20, 2007 at 02:15:53PM +0200, Florian Kulzer wrote: > > > > On Sat, May 19, 2007 at 19:57:49 -0400, Patrick Wiseman wrote: > > > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > > That said, there do seem to be a fair number of self-indulgent, > > > > > self-important, opinionated pundits using this list for their own, > > > > > irrelevant proselytizing of one view or another. But I only know that > > > > > because, on occasion, sort of like looking at a car wreck, I find myself > > > > > opening one of those OT posts. If you open one by accident, delete and > > > > > move > > > > > on. Or so I advise (knowing there are deaf ears out there). > > > > > > > > Maybe you should learn to follow clearly stated list policies such as > > > > "Never send your messages in HTML; use plain text instead." before you > > > > make judgement calls about the contributions of others. > > > > > > Actually, his message was a properly configured multipart/alternative > > > message. I'm set up to prefer text/plain over text/html when viewing > > > multipart/alternative, so I wasn't even aware that it contained an HTML > > > version until I went back to check. I don't think you have any basis for > > > complaint on this one. > > > > I was well aware of the exact nature of his message; that is why I > > changed the subject to "messages with HTML content" and not simply to > > "HTML messages". In my understanding of the English language the words > > "never" and "instead" in the mailing list guidelines rule out messages > > with an HTML part just as much as they rule out HTML-only ones. > > I think you're being unreasonably pedantic. Remember the Internet > Robustness Principle: "Be strict when sending and tolerant when receiving." > (I found http://ironick.typepad.com/ironick/2005/05/my_history_of_t.html to > have a nice history, incidentally.) His message was perfectly readable in > plain text, and I believe that follows the spirit of the law here. > Actually, one of the chief complaints with regard to the volume of OT traffic was that it wastes bandwidth and costs money (especially for those on metered connections). It is, then, a perfectly valid point. > Anyhow, we're way off-topic here. If you want to discuss further, let's > take it off the list. > Seeing as it affects what is considered the norm for interpretation of part of the conduct (does "never send HTML" literally mean you should "never have any HTML in your messages," or does it mean "don't send only HTML, such that someone who whants to see text gets to see it"?), I'd say it is quite on topic. Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sánchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature