1 |
-----Original Message----- |
2 |
From: Marco Matthies [mailto:marco-ml@×××.net] |
3 |
Sent: Friday, December 09, 2005 12:05 AM |
4 |
To: gentoo-amd64@l.g.o |
5 |
Subject: Re: [gentoo-amd64] Re: gcc compile failed after 2005.1-r1 |
6 |
instalation [OT- html posts] |
7 |
|
8 |
* Bob Young wrote: |
9 |
>> I know that many share this opinion, and although I don't want to start |
10 |
a |
11 |
>> flame war, I do think there are some valid counter points in favor of |
12 |
html. |
13 |
>> Everyone is of course free to filter content based on his or her own |
14 |
>> preferences. However most of the reasons given against posting html |
15 |
aren't |
16 |
>> really all that strong. In fact the only thing |
17 |
http://www.emailreplies.com/ |
18 |
>> suggests is that recipients "*might* only be able to receive plain text |
19 |
>> emails." It goes on to note: "Most email clients however... are able to |
20 |
>> receive HTML and rich text messages." It's pretty rare that a modern |
21 |
email |
22 |
>> client can't deal with html. I would argue that the very few desktops |
23 |
not |
24 |
>> using some flavor of GUI should not force a limiting "least common |
25 |
>> denominator" type policy. |
26 |
|
27 |
> Using plain text makes it much easier for a screen reader to read out a |
28 |
> message to a blind person. It works with every email client, even over |
29 |
> a slow ssh link. It's the standard, and for a good reason. |
30 |
|
31 |
It's a trivial task to extract the plain text from an html message. What's |
32 |
wrong with having the email client parse out the plain text and feed that to |
33 |
the screen reader? |
34 |
|
35 |
It's the *standard* because there wasn't anything else available in the |
36 |
beginning, that shouldn't mean it *must* remain that way throughout all |
37 |
eternity. At some point we should allow ourselves some more of the nuances |
38 |
and subtleties of communication that exist in other forms of human |
39 |
communication. |
40 |
|
41 |
|
42 |
|
43 |
>> The other common reason given against html is storage space/bandwidth |
44 |
>> issues. This is a weak argument also; in cost per megabyte storage is |
45 |
>> dirt-cheap. [...] |
46 |
|
47 |
>Take the worlds email traffic, add 20% to it -- i'm pretty sure you |
48 |
>wouldn't regard that as insignificant. |
49 |
|
50 |
The slight increase in size of "valid" email traffic would still be totally |
51 |
dwarfed by the volume of spam, probably by a factor of 100 to 1 or better. |
52 |
Not to mention the fact that some portion of valid email traffic is |
53 |
*already* html. |
54 |
|
55 |
|
56 |
>> Lastly there are some things that are just easier to communicate in a |
57 |
html |
58 |
>> format, diagrams and tables come to mind, we've all seen ASCII diagrams |
59 |
of |
60 |
>> various things and had to stare at them trying to decipher what was the |
61 |
>> author actually trying to communicate. Even in a mostly text message, |
62 |
bold, |
63 |
>> italic, enlarged/reduced, or colored text used for emphasis or |
64 |
de-emphasis |
65 |
>> can make communication much more clear. In short I just think that there |
66 |
is |
67 |
>> this "knee-jerk" reaction to html email in the FLOSS community, and it |
68 |
isn't |
69 |
>> justified by an objective evaluation. |
70 |
|
71 |
>Honestly, how many emails on public lists (such as gentoo-amd64) do you |
72 |
>know that make good use of html? In my experience, this is less than |
73 |
>1%. But let us pretend for a second that people practised tasteful use |
74 |
>of html to enhance their messages as you suggested. The problem is then |
75 |
>that everyone uses a slightly different style, and that looks ugly when |
76 |
>flipping from message to message -- just imagine a magazine with every |
77 |
>page in a different layout. This does not increase readability at all. |
78 |
|
79 |
Even with plain text, some people reply at the top, some at the bottom, some |
80 |
inline. Some people don't trim quotes, some don't quote at all, and many |
81 |
don't bother to spell check, or even re-read the message to see if the |
82 |
sentences are coherent. Does anybody chide someone for a poorly constructed |
83 |
plain text message? Html is just an additional tool that *can* aid |
84 |
communication, can it be mis-used, of course, I don't think that's |
85 |
justification for prohibiting its use. |
86 |
|
87 |
|
88 |
> Besides, tables work fine in ascii, /adding/ *emphasis* _works_ as |
89 |
>well, and if you cannot manage ascii art you can always attach an image |
90 |
>if you must, just like you would do in html. Hyperlinks also work fine, |
91 |
>just put them inline http://foo.bar/ or reference [1] them for later use. |
92 |
|
93 |
I'm not saying that tables or emphasis aren't possible in ASCII, I'm saying |
94 |
that they are much easier and more visually appealing in html. For example |
95 |
how would you communicate the information in "The Best Way Home" example at |
96 |
http://deming.eng.clemson.edu/pub/tutorials/qctools/flowm.htm using plain |
97 |
text? And which do you think is easier and more clearly conveys the |
98 |
information? |
99 |
|
100 |
>P.S. Somehow your quoting mechanism doesn't work correctly, making it |
101 |
>hard to distinguish between your answer and the part of the message you |
102 |
>are quoting. |
103 |
|
104 |
I've added the quotes. |
105 |
Regards |
106 |
Bob Young |
107 |
|
108 |
-- |
109 |
gentoo-amd64@g.o mailing list |