Subject: HTML in email question

From: [email-masked] (Philo)
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 02:56:17 GMT

Just got through with a heated argument with a coworker (who's
normally fairly reasonable) regarding HTML in email. He thinks it's
just so wonderful; that HTML is an added capability, and if you don't
like it, don't use it. The following arguments failed to sway him:

1) I don't have a choice when some nit uses HTML on a mailing list
2) Exactly how much HTML are we going to support? The 3.2 standard?
Whose?
3) Who the HELL wants frames and midi in their email?
4) ASCII has been fine for over 35 years. Why the sudden interest in
colored text?
5) ALL business correspondence remains black print on a white
background. What do we know that the most powerful men in the country
don't?
6) If you can't say it in ASCII, why do I care that your mail has
wallpaper?

Thoughts?

Pope Secola (D)
Finger for public key			[email-masked]
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Not responsible for advice not taken.  -Larry Niven

---

From: Cliff Green <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 15:42:26 -0400 (EDT)

On Wed, 11 Jun 1997, Philo wrote:

> normally fairly reasonable) regarding HTML in email.

[venting about co-worker's preference for the Emperor's New Clothes
munched]

> Thoughts?

Amen.

c
--
Clifford Green               Internet -  [email-masked]
Academic Computing Services     voice -     732-235-5250
UMDNJ-IST                         fax -     732-235-5252
For the sake of a rose, the gardener becomes the servant of a thousand thorns

---

From: [email-masked] (Martin Ming Rudat)
Date: 12 Jun 1997 02:55:25 GMT

While I was trying to stay awake, Philo ([email-masked]) wrote something

>1) I don't have a choice when some nit uses HTML on a mailing list

If he's got a responsible mailer, it'll send an sugar-coated HTMLised
version, and a plaintext version too.  Someone suggested piping the mail
through lynx, anyways.

>2) Exactly how much HTML are we going to support? The 3.2 standard?

HTML 2.0, I think, doesn't support frames? _GOOD_

A thought is if you're using netscape mail, use netscape's html
extensions, and so-forth.

>3) Who the HELL wants frames and midi in their email?

Not me, but It'd be fun to fiddle with, though I'm more interested in
pictures and forms.

>4) ASCII has been fine for over 35 years. Why the sudden interest in

Well um, <B>Boo!</B> >:)

>background. What do we know that the most powerful men in the country

Nothin, they've got work to do, but I've got a little time to stuff
around, so, if it looks nicer, why can't I do it? *shrug*

>6) If you can't say it in ASCII, why do I care that your mail has

Then again, if it is a serious email, it's too much bother to do anything
fancy, but sending a birthday e-mail would be the perfect time to add a
little color and noise.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
www.geocities.com/SoHo/1509  | Martin Ming Rudat, a part-time idiot said:-
minyos.its.rmit.edu.au/~rudat|   "Everything in specific, and nothing in
[email-masked]           |     general is always very interesting."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wierd? What's wrong with Wierd?

---

From: Lucio Chiappetti <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 1997 10:38:32 +0200

> 4) ASCII has been fine for over 35 years. Why the sudden interest in

  I strongly sympatize with your view.
  If I want to send a MAIL, I send a (usually short) PLAIN TEXT message.
  Sometimes I even take a longer document (e.g. Word) and convert it to
  PLAIN formatted text to send it via e-mail.

  If I want somebody to share something else I use OTHER means than e-mail :

    - if I want somebody to print a document I've produced, I prepare a
      postscript file and send him a pointer where to ftp it from.

    - the same if I want to share some data

    - if I want somebody to edit a Word document, I will do the same, put
      it (may be in RTF or Macbinary, depends on which OS we are using at
      both ends) in some area to ftp it from.

    - if I prepare an HTML document (I've done some fairly long manuals),
      I put it on my WWW server, and just send around the URL !

  In none of the above cases I use attachments. There is no guarantee that
  a generic correspondent at the other hand may have a MIME-capable mailer
  or the right viewer or anyhow a way to dispose of it. 
  I may agree use of attachments on a person to person basis, if I am sure
  we are compatible. I will never use them for a posting to a wider list.

  The idea is that one wants the guy at the other hand to be able to read
  what you send without ANY action on his side (this includes not having
  to install any s/w, nor to run anything ... for instance I hate those 
  who send conference announcements in Latex  ... just send it plain text,
  or send an URL !)

  When I receive a mail from some list with an attachment which requires
  special actions, I *DISCARD* it.
 
Post-scriptum (off topic)
About HTML. As a convinced X-Mosaic user, I am quite in disagreement with the
disordered development of many variants of HTML, while its power was in its
simplicity.  But when you pass something from (CERN and NCSA) physicists to
commercial people, that's what you get !

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lucio Chiappetti - IFCTR/CNR - via Bassini 15 - I-20133 Milano (Italy)      
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fuscim donca de Miragn        E tornem a sta scio' in Bregn                 
Che i fachign e i cortesagn   Magl' insema no stagn begn                    
Drizza la', compa' Tapogn                            (Rabisch, II 41, 96-99)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
For more info : http://www.ifctr.mi.cnr.it/~lucio/personal.html             
----------------------------------------------------------------------------