Re: Text email newsletter standard

I'll put it this way.  Plain text can be managed in far more ways than html 
can and is lighter on the load.  Text is highly backward compatible and this 
new emergind standard can make if much more usefull to read.

Someon ementioned long download times.  I find that a fairly good sized text 
document in an email message can actually be faster to download than some of 
the web pages that are out there or some of the email messages that are 
marked up in html.  Html is virus prone.  text is not.  Yes, we should have 
choices, where I have a choice, I rather like delivery not pick up and I 
enjoy text much more than html even though with my high speed high tech 
environment, I can utilize html.

Johnnie Apple Seed

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Matthew Smith" <matt@kbc.net.au>
To: "david poehlman" <david.poehlman@handsontechnologeyes.com>
Cc: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2004 5:00 PM
Subject: Re: Text email newsletter standard


david poehlman wrote:
> except that for many of us, email is much better suited for content
> rendering than the web.

David - do you mean that plain text is rendered better by software (such as
screen readers)?

This statement confirms, however Patrick's statement that there should be a
choice.  Although maybe that should be choices.

There are, of course, two issues at stake here:
1) the delivery medium:
   1a) Picked up by client (Web)
   1b) Delivered to client (email)
2) the document format:
   2a) Plain text
   2b) (X)HTML
   2c) PDF
   2d) etcetera...

So, we should really be offering of what we want to receive and how we want 
to
receive it.

-- 
Matthew Smith
South Australia
http://www.kbc.net.au
FOAF: http://www.mss.cx/foaf.rdf

Received on Wednesday, 8 December 2004 22:14:27 UTC