- From: Mark Callow <callow_mark@hicorp.co.jp>
- Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2012 16:54:36 +0900
- To: public-webapps@w3.org
- Message-ID: <4FCC69BC.5040909@hicorp.co.jp>
On 30/05/2012 00:56, 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. >From the Plain_text Wikipedia page whose link was given above: "Files that contain markup <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markup_language> or other meta-data <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-data> are generally considered plain-text, as long as the entirety remains in directly human-readable <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human-readable> form (as in HTML <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML>, XML <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XML>, and so on ..." If you want people to use what my mail-agent describes as "plain text" instead of what it describes as "rich text", I suggest finding a better reference. Regards -Mark
Received on Monday, 4 June 2012 07:55:32 UTC