On Mar 15, 10:09, Dan Stephans II wrote:
> Subject: Re: What's with the raw HTML?
> Umm, HTML is pretty much a standard no matter what platform you are on as it
> is most certainly not platform dependent. The standard for 1.1 is specified
> in RFC 2068 and for 1.0 in RFC 1945.
Sure, but that's not really the issue. In any case, M$ blatantly ignore those
standards.
> If you mean that there are not standard
> tools to read html'ized mail under unix/linux, I say Netscape is available
> for almost any linux and most other unices running on sparc/intel/alpha
> hardware.
HTML is a markup language designed for web pages. Netscape is primarily
designed for web pages, not mail. It is a very inefficient tool for mail. And
what if you're not running X Windows? I completely agree with Allison and
others, that HTML has no place in textual mail. It is completely unneccessary,
and wastes both bandwidth and time. I suspect you agree, at least in part,
with that.
> I don't argue that HTML rich text is fine for mailing lists,
> however if you are going to argue that it is not you should formulate a
> proper argument.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dan
>
> Allison J Parent wrote:
>
> > <Text. If the e-mail that you wish to respond to's in plain text, that's
> > <what it'll send. The problem is that if M$ supports it, the WHOLE WORLD
> > <suddenly has to all have HTML-ized e-mail readers. It's nice if you hav
> > <it, but a pain in the A** if you don't.
> >
> > There is the little matter of some several million (or more) unix(linux,
> > and related cuzins) systems out there where HTML is far from a standard.
> > For me and many of the hybrid users HTML means slow, slower and special
> > utilities to handle it and for what? What a waste of bandwidth.
> >
> > Allison
--
Pete Peter Turnbull
Dept. of Computer Science
University of York
Received on Sun Mar 15 1998 - 20:52:26 GMT