Le Lundi 12 Décembre 2005 23:59, Bob Young a écrit :
> I've never thought it was "personal," I do however believe it's emotional,
> and for that reason, I don't see any point in continuing. Many just "know"
> that html is bad, and while there may in fact be some negative aspects
> regarding html email, nobody is willing to even entertain the possibility
> that posting in html might be okay in some cases. If nobody is actually
> willing to admit that it's even *possible* that a contrasting viewpoint
> might have some validity, there is really no point continuing the debate,
> as there is no possibility of reaching any common ground, as none exists.
I personnaly don't have anything against HTML messages, as long as they're
used wisely. By wisely, I mean that they should not be the default format to
send to everybody.
The default should be kept as plain text, and if the sender really wants to
"nicely" format her message, then she has to check the "HTML message" box.
To me, using HTML messages to a mailing list is like using MS Word to send a
(textual) joke, or MS PowerPoint to send a (static) picture. You never know
if the receiver will be able to read it or not, and in many cases the intent
of the formating is lost, especially with the heterogenous crowd of mail
clients out there.
So let's keep HTML messages for "family" or "corporate" communication, and use
text-only format for messages destinated to unknown mail readers.
This is not "emotional", nor "personal", it's just a matter of common sense.
To be convinced, just try to google for "reasons why html in email is bad".
email@example.com mailing list