OT: HTML mail (Was: Re: OFFLIST: No HTML, please)

On Mon, Nov 06, 2006 at 09:02:37PM -0500, li_sasxsek@nutter.net wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 05, 2006 at 10:43:55PM -0500, Paul Bennett wrote:
> > > On Sun, 05 Nov 2006 22:22:16 -0500, Mark J. Reed
> > <markjreed@...> wrote:
> > >
> > > >I agree that HTML-only messages, or messages that can only be
> > > >understood in their HTML form, are clearly bad;
> > > > But multipart/alternative messages with a meaningful text/plain
> > > >alternate should be perfectly acceptable.
> > [...]
> >
> > Agreed. If the text/plain alternate is of equivalent content, then I
> > see no major problem with HTML + text emails. As long as it's not
> > like what spammers do (provide an innocuous text/plain message to
> > fool filters and put the spam content in (obscured) HTML).
> >
> > (Although personally, I never bother to read HTML mail.)
[...]

OK, I was the one who wrote this, and I'm not sure how it got attributed
to Paul Bennett. But anyway.


> Alright! This just hit one of my big sorespots.  I absolutely
> hate/loathe/despise/detest/abhor HTML e-mail!!!
Thanks for expressing what I wanted to but didn't dare to. :-) My
comment really should be interpreted as "I hate HTML, but since people
insist, I'll tolerate them using it as long as they provide a plain/text
alternative so that I don't have to look at the abomination."


> It's extremely irritating to reply or forward to HTML e-mails for
> those of us (the overwhelming majority) using MS Outbreak.  It
> completely messes up all formatting and makes difficult to reformat to
> get the quotes put back together properly, even moreso when switching
> the outgoing format back to "plain" text.  That and having to look at
> all that cutesy stationary (especially when animated) makes me want to
> projectile vomit.  These are just the usage issues so I won't go into
> the security concerns that make it even less appealing.
Yes, MS LookOut has so many security problems, not just due to
programming bugs, but *fundamental design flaws*, that anyone who gives
a darn about security should seriously consider using something else. I
don't even want to get started on why there are such things as email
viruses, which shouldn't even exist in the first place had it not been
for completely b0rken software like this.


> HTML was intended as a companion to HTTP for "the web" and never
> intended for messaging.
Exactly!!!!! I suppose I'm among a very small minority, but seriously,
who cares about colors and what-not? Just give me the darned *content*
and cut down on the worthless frills. What makes it worse is that having
the ability to use colors and stuff causes certain people to make
completely content-less stuff the only redeeming value of which is the
garish colors that make your eyes bleed.


> If you must have the colors and stuff, at least use Rich Text (RTF)
> and leave HTML for the WWW where it belongs.
No!!!!!! Not RTF!!!!! RTF is an abomination that must be gotten rid of.
RTF is just an extremely lame and badly-implemented ripoff of TeX/LaTeX.
It's even worse than HTML, because HTML is at least readable on all
(non-Windows) platforms without needing to install extra software just
for the sake of being able to read RTF.  If you want formatting, *real*
formatting that is, you should seriously consider learning LaTeX. Or use
LyX. Or export whatever it is you work with as a PDF. Anything.  Now
that modern software is finally catching up to UTF-8, there should be no
reason whatsoever to use RTF or any of the lame half-assed attempts at
improving the text format. Especially on a linguistically-clued list
like CONLANG.


> I could also go into a long tirade about webpages too but I'll save
> that for later when someone starts evangelizing Flash (thank {insert
> higher power here} for Flash Block, and Adblock).
HTML is the wart of email communication that should've been confined to
only HTTP, and Flash is the pus therein which must be disinfected off
the face of the Web.

[Disclaimer: much of this message is way over-the-top. The reader is
hereby advised to take a deep breath and not react to deliberate
hyperbole by getting emotionally inflamed. Thank you.]


T

--
If I were two-faced, would I be wearing this one? -- Abraham Lincoln

Reply