Subject: [lojban] Re: HTML mail (was Re: bridling hostility)

From: Invent Yourself <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 12:07:10 -0500 (EST)

On Thu, 12 Dec 2002, Jordan DeLong wrote:

> 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.

I looked for stats but I can't find them. But I am dead certain that a
vast majority are running {Lookout Express, yahoo, hotmail}. You are by no
means representative of the mainstream. It's great to be an outlier, but
one must remain aware of it.

> 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).

HTML provides rich text markup, images, and other frivolity that many
people who eschew your asceticism rather enjoy. It's the way things are
going and you must adapt. I suggest you upgrade to a mail client that
displays text in 7-bit while gracefully dealing with html, or use some
scripting haxery to filter out or nullify any html that arrives.

-- 
Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.