1 |
On 2 Dec 2008, at 12:25, Dale wrote: |
2 |
> ... |
3 |
> This reminds me of the text/html debate. If you put links in the body |
4 |
> and some guru that has the answer doesn't like links in the body, they |
5 |
> may not read your post and you could be left without a answer for a |
6 |
> while longer. Or worse yet, if it is some software that is rarely |
7 |
> used, |
8 |
> they may be the only one here that uses the software and has the |
9 |
> answer. |
10 |
> |
11 |
> I prefer html messages myself but a lot of people here don't like them |
12 |
> so I send text. Some users even have filters that sends html to |
13 |
> /dev/null which means they don't ever even get seen or read. This is |
14 |
> something you may want to consider when you send something. |
15 |
|
16 |
I've been wondering for a while why no alternative has been proposed. |
17 |
HTML was originally considered poor because it wasted bandwidth, HTML |
18 |
messages being *at least* twice the size of the plain text, but often |
19 |
several times as large. I wonder if console-based mail-readers were |
20 |
late in adopting it for that reason, and it gained additional |
21 |
unpopularity amongst programmers & the technorati as a consequence. |
22 |
|
23 |
Nowadays HTML is bad principally because it imposes fonts upon the |
24 |
reader. I know what size my monitor is & at what size my mail program |
25 |
should render text. I have an HTML-capable mail reader & have no |
26 |
objection to the HTML messages sent by Amazon & Deep Discount, because |
27 |
they are clear & readable - they have expensive design teams who |
28 |
clearly take a deal of time ensuring that. But a poster to the |
29 |
Openmoko mailing list a while back formatted his messages not only in |
30 |
a tasteful green which I'm sure he enjoyed a lot, but also in a tiny |
31 |
font which was unreadable on my screen. Undoubtedly it looked fine to |
32 |
him, but I don't know what resolution he was using - 800 x 600??? - |
33 |
because the characters were about 2mm high on my 20" @ 1600 x 1200. |
34 |
|
35 |
What I think would be ideal for email would be a very simple text |
36 |
markup which allows italics, underline, bold and strikethrough |
37 |
characters in addition to links. I'd love to be able to convey those |
38 |
kinds of emphasis to readers, and I'd also love to be able to use |
39 |
proper clickable links in the body of a text message, but at present I |
40 |
can't, because I don't think it's appropriate for me to impose 13- |
41 |
point Verdana on those who prefer Times or Courier in some other size. |
42 |
|
43 |
EDIT: I guess a text size +1 for headers would also be appropriate |
44 |
(+2, -1, -2), bullet points plus superscript and subscript. Clearly |
45 |
some hashing out would be appropriate, but ideally formatting should |
46 |
be minimal, so that even displayed as pain-text the formatting is not |
47 |
intrusive; EG: --strikethough--, /italics/, _underline_ &c. |
48 |
|
49 |
I have also found that clients appear inconsistent about how they |
50 |
apply quoting to HTML messages. At least often if I reply to an HTML |
51 |
message and change it to plain text then the quoted message magically |
52 |
looses a level of quoting. Typically I change to plain-text like this |
53 |
because I've copied & pasted a single sentence out of the quoted |
54 |
section and it comes out into my own paragraph as blue, the wrong size |
55 |
and an inconsistent font - this is another grip about HTML. |
56 |
|
57 |
> Also, I have ran into tinyurl not working or if I look up a old |
58 |
> post, it |
59 |
> may have expired or something and the link goes nowhere. |
60 |
|
61 |
I'm surprised by this, and always assumed TinyURL kept their links |
62 |
forever. Are you sure it's not simply that the post is so old it |
63 |
points to a target page that no longer exists? It looks like TinyURL |
64 |
have the capacity for about 2,176,782,336 unique links before they |
65 |
need to add another digit after the slash. |