From arosta@uclan.ac.uk Thu Dec 12 09:12:55 2002 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 12 Dec 2002 09:12:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from com1.uclan.ac.uk ([193.61.255.3]) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18MWtI-0006Ss-00; Thu, 12 Dec 2002 09:12:52 -0800 Received: from gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk by com1.uclan.ac.uk with SMTP (Mailer); Thu, 12 Dec 2002 16:38:28 +0000 Received: from DI1-Message_Server by gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk with Novell_GroupWise; Thu, 12 Dec 2002 17:13:45 +0000 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.2 Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 17:13:04 +0000 From: And Rosta To: fracture , lojban-list , lojban-out Subject: [lojban] HTML mail (was Re: bridling hostility) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by Ecartis Content-Disposition: inline X-archive-position: 3489 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: arosta@uclan.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list I do my best not to send HTML mail, and I didn't realize I had sent some. My university email had been bouncing (so I didn't get Jordan's original complaint about HTML mail from me), so I had gone online to reply via the web, where I was using an unfamiliar and less controllable interface than usual. --And. >>> lojban-out@lojban.org 12/12/02 04:58pm >>> On Thu, Dec 12, 2002 at 11:33:58AM -0500, Invent Yourself wrote: > On Thu, 12 Dec 2002, Jordan DeLong wrote: > > Could you not send html in mail? (At least, if you expect it to > > be read). > > > > On Thu, Dec 12, 2002 at 03:07:22PM +0100, And Rosta wrote: > > [?] > > Yes, this speaks to the subject, doesn't it? > > The net is a wild and wooly place, and special, old-school requirements > are surely the responsibility of the eccentric recipient only. HTML mail > is not unreasonable in the year 2002, when most email clients are > HTML-savvy. Most mail clients are *not* HTML savvy. And I know of no good ones which are. However the real issue is whether HTML is even desirable for mail. It was certainly not designed for it, and I certainly don't feel like writing html when replying to things (not to mention that the HTML one gets tends to be generated and ALL CAPS, non standards-compliant and unreadable, not to mention it's 90% likely to contain porn advertisements). Not suprised to hear you support it though---what with all your anti-standards "webdesign" outlook on the internet, which we've discussed before. -- Jordan DeLong - fracture@allusion.net lu zo'o loi censa bakni cu terzba le zaltapla poi xagrai li'u sei la mark. tuen. cusku