Tomas Fasth <tomas@???> probably said:
> Philip Hazel wrote:
> > > I meet people who don't see a single use for HTML or non-ASCII in email
> > > either. Baffling isn't it?
No, not at all. I think you're in the minority in this group on that.
Email isn't a file transfer protocol (although it can be useful to send
small files that way) and neither is it http or micros~1 Word.
When using email for talking to someone I see zero need for HTML or
any other similar text description/encoding.
People who send two line text messages as 150k word files boggle me.
> > I have to react to that. I see no use for HTML or non-ASCII in email
> > *when used as a medium for correspondence*. I have no problem with
> > sending attachments in any form you might want, but if you just want to
> > send some text to somebody I don't see the point of wrapping it up into
> > some fancy format, except that it uses more bandwidth and therefore
> > makes more money for somebody, I guess. Cynical? me? well, yes :-)
>
> So, you want to keep it simple. I also like it simple. Unfortunately
> the world wide reality is usually not quite that simple. When you
> mention non-ASCII as if it's something undesirable I cannot help
s/ASCII/plain text/g
> > Sending, on every message, a fancy "business card" in HTML with a logo
> > that makes it many times bigger than the actual message is particularly
> > annoying.
> I can only agree. This is very annoying, as is volumious signatures,
> or volumious quoted text without reason.
All the above problems are getting worse, and people are getting more and
more rightious about why they're right about it :/
People using the over engineered mail readers that deal with the silly
business card attatchments never see them so don't see them as a problem.
> > I read my email using Pine on Unix. I now never bother to look
> > at gratuitous attachments in HTML (or anything else, for that matter).
Similar, but mutt on unix (mutt, btw, Philip, can be configured to
feel very much like pine but is much, much faster and efficient in
case you want to look at it :)
I cat html attachments, if they arn't easy to read, they get deleted.
MS/TNSF (or whatever) attatchments get deleted.
> The Pine developers always have the choice of supporting HTML in a
> similar fashion as Lynx does.
and I hope thay don't. MUAs are not web browsers.
> > I'm probably an old-fashioned dinosaur (having been around rather a long
> > time), but I don't like complexity just for the sake of it.
>
> Even dinosaurs have to adjust to a changing environment (the real
> ones never got the chance though 8)
I just wish the enviroment didn't get stupid ideas in it's head.
P.
--
pir pir@??? pir@??? pir@???
