- From: david poehlman <david.poehlman@handsontechnologeyes.com>
- Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2004 17:13:46 -0500
- To: "Matthew Smith" <matt@kbc.net.au>
- Cc: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
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