HTML in mail

From: Chuck McManis <>
Date: Wed Jun 21 12:55:19 2000

At 07:24 PM 6/21/00 +0200, Hans wrote:
> > HTML is rude in mail messages sent to this list, just as it is rude to
> walk
> > around nude on a beach that has not embraced nudity. So that is the bottom
> > line. We may be HTML prudes, but we're open about it.
>While I agree with your ideas about HTML, this example is just ill
>constructed. This may be rude in your culture, but over here, nobody
>even recognizes such a behavior as 'rude' (Well, maybe if you select
>some RV Park beach ...). In munich you will even find naked people
>cheering the sun within public parks or along the Isar River, in the
>very middle of the City ...

But this is exactly my point. When people say "Gee, 95% of the worlds mail
programs can handle HTML so you shouldn't complain about me sending it to
the list." They are apply their "local" cultural mores to a "non-local"
community. You're Munichens (sp?) when they visit Florida and stroll down
the beach without tops are quite surprised when the local authorities ask
them to cover up, they are using their local code of ethics in a place
where it doesn't apply.

The point is that in "this culture" (where "this culture" is defined to be
the set of people who subscribe to and read the classiccmp mailing list) it
is "rude" to send mail in HTML. So attempting to argue right/wrong based on
a technical discussion of the relative market penetration of HTML
compatible mail readers is fruitless. Further, discussions like "the
so-and-so list is all HTML and nobody there minds." is also not a valid
argument to support HTML in mail.

Received on Wed Jun 21 2000 - 12:55:19 BST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Oct 10 2014 - 23:33:02 BST