Re: [tlug] VT100 Display Capability in Email (Re: Rendering HTMLEmail)

[bruno raoult <bruno@example.com>]

Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> I see your point about non-geek users, of course.  But the fact that
> hundreds of millions find HTML in email "trendy" or hard to avoid
> doesn't make it good.

Sure! But having 100th of thousands IT guys pretending ASCII email is
"better", "pure", etc... does not make it good either.

The big difference I see is that we often tend to assume we know the
"true path". In this sense, even my father is more correct, as he will
simply say that he "prefers HTML". I prefer the second way of speaking.

As of me, yes, I prefer non HTML emails. It does not mean it is good
(there are many arguments on both sides)...
Said this, I can hardly say "accept my emails, I will refuse yours".
This was my first point in this thread. Openness starts with myself, and
I do my part: Sending the easiest emails to decode, and accepting the
more I can with my system.

And also, I am not masochist ;-) This war is lost anyway. We could see
some lights (in some places) in the office documents formats, in
operating systems, etc... Surely not in the HTML emails area, and it's
not gonna to happen. Except if another format comes with more
possibilities (bold, fonts, colors, etc...). Even the 1920s typewriters
could at least make bold characters instead of using "*". We have little
progress here, and the word is light.

br.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature