- From: イアンフェッティ <ifette@google.com>
- Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 09:59:09 -0700
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: Jean-Claude Dufourd <jean-claude.dufourd@telecom-paristech.fr>, public-webapps@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CAF4kx8eMzc43eW1cQpgzsF20+UOi6EF5QBHxoy+y9M5hQfNc3w@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 9:52 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>wrote: > On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 9:28 AM, Jean-Claude Dufourd > <jean-claude.dufourd@telecom-paristech.fr> wrote: > > On 29/5/12 17:56 , Julian Reschke wrote: > >> > >> On 2012-05-29 16:53, Glenn Maynard wrote: > >>> > >>> On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 9:22 AM, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com > >>> <mailto:art.barstow@nokia.com>> wrote: > >>> > >>> * Messages should be encoded usingplain text > >>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plain_text> > >>> > >>> > >>> No, messages should have a plaintext *version* (MIME alternative). > It's > >>> common and useful to use HTML messages, especially when posting about > >>> actual spec text, where being able to use italics and bold is extremely > >>> useful. This is quite a relic; I havn't heard anyone make the "emails > >>> should only be in plain text" claim in a decade or so. > >> > >> > >> Emails should only be in plain text. > > > > JCD: It would be easier for me to comply with this rule if I understood > the > > rationale. > > My perception is that this rule is not relevant any more. > > > > Against this rule, I claim that the readability of replies in text-only > > threads is much worse, unless the replier spends ages paying attention to > > text formatting by hand which is not acceptable. At least, that was the > case > > the last time I tried. > > There are several fairly simple reasons supporting Glenn's point > (Julian's is simple excessive): > > 1. Many HTML-producing mail clients still produce very bad HTML, which > doesn't translate well to all clients. > > 2. In the same vein, the WYSIWYG nature often means that people end up > producing something that looks "good enough", particular with quote > towers. Many of the rich-text editors I've seen have really bad > usability around quote towers. > > 3. I've seen a *lot* of abuse of color as a way of distinguishing > between quote and reply. This is confusing because, first, it's a > second way of doing the same thing, and second, I'm color-blind. > > Basically, in plain text there's more-or-less only way to do most > things. It's really easy to format, especially if you follow a format > like Markdown so you don't have to think about things much. > > I happen to read and write all my messages in plain text, and I can > assure you that it does not take "ages". Most of the time, all I have > to do is trim the whitespace that Gmail inserts at the top, and trim > off signatures from the bottom. If I feel like it, I'll take a few > seconds to clean up the quote tower too to add or remove blank lines > at the correct quote depth as necessary. Responding to your email, > for example, took less than 5 seconds of formatting time. > > ~TJ > > And your modified reply causes GMail not to collapse the replied-to text, meaning that when I want to scan through a thread I have to spend a lot more effort finding where the previous email ended and your reply beings. There's a lot of benefits to formatted conversations. I don't understand what benefits people are claiming from plain text that aren't resolved by using an up-to-date MUA.
Received on Tuesday, 29 May 2012 17:00:02 UTC