On Sat, Dec 08, 2001 at 12:01:15PM -0800, wikipedia-l-request@nupedia.com wrote:

Date:

On Fri, 7 Dec 2001 16:37:36 -0800 (PST), Tim Chambers tbchambers@yahoo.com wrote:

--- Jimmy Wales jwales@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.