W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > May 2007

Re: missing principle

From: Patrick Taylor <patrick@healtheconomics.org>
Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 20:46:53 -0300
Message-Id: <BCEA51D8-233E-424D-AAAA-3243C710A8B7@healtheconomics.org>
Cc: "Philip Taylor (Webmaster)" <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>

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"?


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?

Received on Tuesday, 1 May 2007 23:46:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:20 UTC