On Sat, Dec 08, 2001 at 12:01:15PM -0800, wikipedia-l-request(a)nupedia.com wrote:
> Date:
On Fri, 7 Dec 2001 16:37:36 -0800 (PST), Tim Chambers <tbchambers(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)bomis.com> wrote:
> > ... HTML in email is evil and annoying, I agree.
>
> I happen to stand for the other side. HTML in email allows for richer
> expression of ideas.
> I delight in replying to people in HTML if they
> send me HTML first.
Between people who have already agreed what to send each other, you can
use whatever you like. But on a mailing list, you can't expect to get
consensus to use anything but what is allowed for by the standard
protocols.
Moreover, to those of us who receive mail in digest form, the HTML and
attachment components of messages are just noise, wasting time and
bandwidth, and making the digest much more difficult to read.
Can we please have the list software drop any attachments?
> I like to use italic, bold, numbered and bullet lists, and
> (occasionally) tables.
There are existing conventions for all of these:
* list
* items
*bold text*
/italic text/
_underline text_
Tables are simply aligned columns, since a fixed-width font is assumed.
Is this catering to the lowest common denominator? Yes, of course,
because that way the content is as accessible as possible. HTML was
never designed for email, and each client will display it in ways you
can't predict anyway, so imagining you have some sort of layout control
is futile.
> On this list, I've been known to write up a wiki page, then I include
> a pointer to it in my plain, old boring ASCII text e-mail. That keeps
> everyone happy.
Sounds ideal. Placing "attachment" content on a webpage and providing
the URL allows interested parties to see the content as intended, and
doesn't force it down anyone's badwidth-limited throat.
--
\ "Two rules to success in life: 1. Don't tell people everything |
`\ you know." -- Sassan Tat |
_o__) |
bignose(a)zip.com.au F'print 9CFE12B0 791A4267 887F520C B7AC2E51 BD41714B
