1 |
Bob Young wrote: |
2 |
> I know that many share this opinion, and although I don't want to start a |
3 |
> flame war, I do think there are some valid counter points in favor of html. |
4 |
> Everyone is of course free to filter content based on his or her own |
5 |
> preferences. However most of the reasons given against posting html aren't |
6 |
> really all that strong. In fact the only thing http://www.emailreplies.com/ |
7 |
> suggests is that recipients "*might* only be able to receive plain text |
8 |
> emails." It goes on to note: "Most email clients however... are able to |
9 |
> receive HTML and rich text messages." It's pretty rare that a modern email |
10 |
> client can't deal with html. I would argue that the very few desktops not |
11 |
> using some flavor of GUI should not force a limiting "least common |
12 |
> denominator" type policy. |
13 |
|
14 |
Using plain text makes it much easier for a screen reader to read out a |
15 |
message to a blind person. It works with every email client, even over |
16 |
a slow ssh link. It's the standard, and for a good reason. |
17 |
|
18 |
> The other common reason given against html is storage space/bandwidth |
19 |
> issues. This is a weak argument also; in cost per megabyte storage is |
20 |
> dirt-cheap. [...] |
21 |
|
22 |
Take the worlds email traffic, add 20% to it -- i'm pretty sure you |
23 |
wouldn't regard that as insignificant. |
24 |
|
25 |
> Lastly there are some things that are just easier to communicate in a html |
26 |
> format, diagrams and tables come to mind, we've all seen ASCII diagrams of |
27 |
> various things and had to stare at them trying to decipher what was the |
28 |
> author actually trying to communicate. Even in a mostly text message, bold, |
29 |
> italic, enlarged/reduced, or colored text used for emphasis or de-emphasis |
30 |
> can make communication much more clear. In short I just think that there is |
31 |
> this "knee-jerk" reaction to html email in the FLOSS community, and it isn't |
32 |
> justified by an objective evaluation. |
33 |
|
34 |
Honestly, how many emails on public lists (such as gentoo-amd64) do you |
35 |
know that make good use of html? In my experience, this is less than |
36 |
1%. But let us pretend for a second that people practised tasteful use |
37 |
of html to enhance their messages as you suggested. The problem is then |
38 |
that everyone uses a slightly different style, and that looks ugly when |
39 |
flipping from message to message -- just imagine a magazine with every |
40 |
page in a different layout. This does not increase readability at all. |
41 |
Besides, tables work fine in ascii, /adding/ *emphasis* _works_ as |
42 |
well, and if you cannot manage ascii art you can always attach an image |
43 |
if you must, just like you would do in html. Hyperlinks also work fine, |
44 |
just put them inline http://foo.bar/ or reference [1] them for later use. |
45 |
|
46 |
[1] http://foo.bar/ |
47 |
|
48 |
Sincerely, |
49 |
Marco |
50 |
|
51 |
P.S. Somehow your quoting mechanism doesn't work correctly, making it |
52 |
hard to distinguish between your answer and the part of the message you |
53 |
are quoting. |
54 |
-- |
55 |
gentoo-amd64@g.o mailing list |