Re: [TCLUG:11730] HTML email on a list?

[Thomas Veldhouse <veldy@visi.com>]

On Thu, 30 Dec 1999, ^chewie wrote:

> On Thu, 30 Dec 1999, Thomas Veldhouse wrote:
> Oh, yeah. The '*' for bold face or CAPS for emphasis is very difficult to
> do.  I can see your point.  
>
You missed the point.
 
> You might try to use the argument, "but I can put hyperlinks in the email
> so people can use their mousie to open their browser automatically."  Yes,
> you can, but you can also just type in http://<sitename>.  Many email
> clients can recognize and "hyperlink-ify" these common strings.  (Notice
> my "mailto:" string below.)
>

Hyperlinks are nice in email - saves cut and paste.  Most GUI email
clients recognize hyperlinks in text, so it is really a non-issue anyway.
 
> > To answer your first question, yes, I am "friggin" nuts.  Does that change
> > your opinion of me?
> 
> I thought I stated what my opinion of you was. ;-)  Want me to reitterate?
> "You're friggin nuts!"
>
Thank you.  I was trying to hint that such juvenile name calling doesn't
quite make a point. I guess I should be more blunt :-)
 
> The truth of the matter is that email is a primative document exchange for
> a reason, it's simple.  It's designed to be that way.  Text takes less
> time to download than graphics.  Text documents do not need to be
> interpreted by software for the viewer to understand it.  Common email
> tags such as the '*' are just that, common, and universally understood, or
> at least easily understood.  I see no reason to rewrite the entire email
> infrastructure to satisfy a few people who want to use a horribly designed
> mark up language to implement boldface and underlines, embed hyperlinks or
> add a stationary background to their email.

Well, if things in the industry didn't change, you would be using DOS
right now, wouldn't you?  It used to be Intel = DOS.

I was not advocating HTML for this list, for the very reason that many of
us use text based email clients (I have been using Pine all day).  So, if
you read carefully, you might realize that I was simply stating reasons
why we should be using standards on this list based upon the "common
denomiator" of all the likely email clients - instead of something that
suits the taste of a few.  But that thread is dead.

> 
> It's great for private email between two users who agree that it's great.
> It sucks for email lists where people can't regulate what type of email
> they receive.

I agree entirely.  I use HTML with family and friends, but I use text for
mailing list, newsgroups, and those unfortunate enought to be using
CC-MAIL.

Tom Veldhouse
veldy@visi.com