Re: html, styled e-mail vs. plain text (was: I agree. LKS)

[Hugh Haskell <hhaskell@MINDSPRING.COM>]

Well, I have to admit that I am pretty ignorant of all the ins and
outs of network stuff, so I have no idea what this thread is all
about. If it means those occasional e-mails (usually spam) that
include all sorts of different fonts and little pictures, then forget
it. All they do is take forever to load and you can't delete them
while they are loading. On the other hand, if you are talking about
technology that will let me send equations and technical figures in
e-mails and have them be readable at the other end, then I'm all for
it. If the latter means I have to put up with the former, well, I
guess that's a reasonable trade-off, but so far I have seen plenty of
the former and none of the latter. I do my e-mail on a G3 Mac (OS-9)
with Eudora Pro 4.2.2. Sometimes I connect through an ethernet link
and sometimes uisng a 56K modem and Free PPP. If someone will tell me
where this puts me in the spectrum of readability of the stuff
everyone is talking about, I will crawl back in my hole and pull the
sod over the opening. For now.

Hugh

> At 10:37 17 12 1999 -0700, you wrote:
>  >At 12:30 AM -0700 12/17/1999, Jim Green wrote:
>  > >Dan, et al, we _understand_ the rules -- this is not at issue.
> But we feel
>  > >that the rules need updating.
>  >
>  >Who are "we"?  The neo-baroques?
>
> For those who are not following closely "we" are the people Dan addressed
> in his post - and any other forward looking people on the list.
>
> For readers of Larry's post which is quoted below, please note that while
> he was not born in Texas, he did go to school there -- but not in
> Lubbock. (:-)
>
> Jim
>
>  > >While they were marginally OK in years
>  > >past, currently we need to prepare to take the next step -- a
> step which is
>  > >essentially inevitable.
>  >
>  >How can things on this list be inevitable if we set our own rules?  If we
>  >decide we want plain easy-to-read text, who can make us muck it up with
>  >html or funky styles?
>  >
>  > >Yes, some might experience some pain, but sooner
>  > >or later that experience will come.
>  >
>  >Only if we agree to it.
>  >
>  > >And for some it is now -- some Outlook
>  > >people just can't figure out how to defeat styled messages
>  >
>  >Hmmm....if the people in question are smart, then the program must be
>  >stupid.  I could suggest a better e-mail program.
>  >
>  > >and publishers
>  > >of upcoming readers show little tolerance for resistance to progress, so
>  > >like it or not we will see HTML on the list.
>  >
>  >I wonder if some are missing an important point: plain 7-bit ASCII is not a
>  >new or different standard incompatible with html or styled text, it is a
>  >subset of it.  Those of us who are considerate of others and who desire to
>  >communicate more than impress (or sell something) will continue to be able
>  >to send plain text for the foreseeable future.
>  >
>  > >And why not?  The arguments against them are mostly spurious.
>  >
>  >I disagree.  Usually on e-mail lists the content is king, not the format.
>  >The content is in the text, the plain 7-bit ASCII text, not in the colors
>  >and fonts and sizes that obfuscate things.  On rare occasions where
>  >formatting is important (like equation typesetting), it is better to put it
>  >in TeX.dvi (if the source TeX directly in the e-mail won't do), pdf, or on
>  >a real web page and e-mail the URL.
>  >
>  > >The difficulties are usually easily defeated.
>  >
>  >But there are no benefits to changing.  Why mess things up just for the
>  >sake of doing something new?  Are you one of those people who has to have
>  >the very newest beta of every program in the world?  Some of us like to be
>  >convinced there are actual benefits to a proposed "upgrade."
>  >
>  > >The extra bandwidth is nowhere near as great as the off list verbiage.
>  >
>  >That doesn't make it inconsequential.
>  >
>  > >Readers are free for PCs & Macs and cheap for mainframes.
>  >
>  >True, but..... the whole point of e-mail lists like ours is communication.
>  >Let's not lose sight of that.  Up to the present, and, IMHO, for a least
>  >another few years in the future, communication is best facilitated by plain
>  >text.  Not only does it get the message across, but it is also the common
>  >denominator for e-mail programs of all kinds.
>  >
>  > >But as I said in a previous post, Vcards are silly and just a pesky bother
>  > >and attachments remain too dangerous for now, so we agree about them.
>  >
>  >Hey, at least we agree on one thing!
>  >
>  > >Dan, if not now, then under what conditions should HTML be accepted in the
>  > >rules.  Yes, Luddites will say "never", but they are Luddites.
>  >
>  >I'm _happy_ to be a Luddite on this issue.  In general, I'm a reasonably
>  >savvy computer user (I'd never use anything as primitive as Windows :), and
>  >I've been e-mailing with mainframe programs and local clients for 15 years.
>  >I own, use, and love the best e-mail client there is; it is certainly
>  >_capable_ of styled text, but I turn that feature off.  People who are
>  >against html and styled e-mail are not necessarily computer neanderthals.
>  >
>  >And "never" is a very long time.  Possibly the time will come when I will
>  >agree that html is a common denominator; and maybe by then I will be
>  >convinced that it provides some new benefits.  But I don't think that time
>  >is soon.
>  >
>  >Cheers,
>  >Larry
>
> Jim Green
> mailto:JMGreen@sisna.com
> http://users.sisna.com/jmgreen


Hugh Haskell
<mailto://hhaskell@mindspring.com>

Let's face it. People use a Mac because they want to, Windows because they
have to..
******************************************************