- From: Patrick Taylor <patrick@healtheconomics.org>
- Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 20:46:53 -0300
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Cc: "Philip Taylor (Webmaster)" <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
On 1-May-07, at 3:16 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > On May 1, 2007, at 6:23 AM, Philip Taylor (Webmaster) wrote: > >> Daniel Glazman wrote: >> > >> > I think we miss one principle about the ubiquity of HTML. HTML >> is not >> > only used in web browsers. It's used in email >> >> In the view of many (most ?), HTML is /abused/ in e-mail. E-mail >> is about the communication of information, and can invariably >> best be accomplished using text/plain. > > Most would like to be able to put some bold or italic text in their > email, or embed a picture, or include a list, without concerning > themselves with the format. They don't know or care that it is HTML. > > I notice that you set some of your text in pseudo-italics using the > slash convention: "/abused/". Why is that invariably a better way > of communicating information than using real italics: "abused"? Absolutely. Text/plain is my preferred method of email communication, but it seems pretty obvious that most problems with HTML emails aren't with HTML, but with (1) the crufty, non-standard code generated by email apps; (2) poor forwarding support by email UAs; and (3) poor taste (fixing that is --I think-- outside our mandate). In any case, HTML emails are a reality, I think that this particular "cow path" should be paved. If email apps are considered HTML UAs then it would have to happen, wouldn't it? Patrick
Received on Tuesday, 1 May 2007 23:46:59 UTC