[TriLUG] HTML e-mail (was Rant: Please trim responses)

[Matt Matthews]

On Sat, Mar 23, 2002 at 11:56:14AM -0500, Tanner Lovelace wrote:
> On Fri, 2002-03-22 at 17:52, Rob Napier wrote:
> > That has nothing to do with HTML itself. We should be demanding (and
> > writing via OSS) better ways to implement new functionality; not just
> > saying that new functionality is bad or wrong to use.
> 
> Feel free to go write of the new functionality, since you obvious  want
> it so bad.  I'm saying I don't want to use it myself, and I don't want
> to read from other people.  

See, this is the part where I think you're losing Rob, and I'm beginning to
think, me as well. Rob's point, unless I'm mistaken, seems to be:

  We live in a world of free software and others don't. We also live in a
  world where some communication is more appropriate with markup and other
  communication is easier with plaintext. Further, we live in a world where
  some choose the higher end tools to deal with HTML and text while others
  prefer the plaintext way. We, as the free software users, have the power to
  make all of this work together. Let us make software that allows the most
  freedom for users to act in concert while remaining individuals.

Then again, perhaps I've got Rob wrong. He'll tell me if I do, hopefully.

Your words, however, give me the impression that you feel plaintext is
good enough for all communication via email, and that users that don't opt for
plaintext are making life miserable for users like you. Rob's suggestion here
is that we work to make tools that benefit everyone, and that this is within
our grasp since we have the power to meld our tools.

To that end, it is certainly feasible that we can use tools at hand to make
this work, perhaps without much trouble. Couldn't we have mutt/elm/pine spawn
a links/lynx/w3m process when it encounters an HTML message? This would make
transparent to vt100 users the conversion taking place. Replies might be
difficult to handle, so HTML to plaintext conversion can be accomplished.

And Rob is perhaps frustrated when the people that want plaintext only,
because "that's good enough", are effectively pulling a Microsoft and saying
"use my document format, or we don't do business." Yes, plaintext is good
enough for many people. But I don't think that that means that HTML shouldn't
be used in email or that I will send to /dev/null any emails I get with HTML.
The meaning of the communication itself is more important to me than the way
people choose to package it and I want to be able to read plaintext and HTML
email seamlessly.  Again, we are the ones in power, since we can make better
tools (and really already have many of those tools available) and could show
some leadership by living more happily with those that either can't or won't
live in a world of free software.

Such freedom and flexibility and leadership could even be a beacon to lead
those that don't know of our world out of the darkness.

> > Not at all. If formatted text is good, then I say it's up to us (the
> > geeks) to design how it should be implemented, not say "don't use
> > formatted text."
> 
> Show me the code.  You want it bad enough, then quit arguing and start
> coding.

He's asking for us, as a community, to work together on such projects. That
ideally means that members of all classes, plaintext and HTML, will
contribute. Sniping at an idea with the "ok, fine, you do it" response could
give one the impression that you just don't have a cogent reply to his point.

> Formating tables, btw, is much easier in text, which is usually fixed
> width (except in certain MS products like outlook...)

I'm not sure I follow this point. There are tables that convey useful
information using non-plaintext markup (HTML, TeX, etc.) that simply cannot be
replicated in plaintext effectively. For example, a table with enough columns
and rows taxes the plaintext format. Even 8 columns with reasonably titled
column headers will make for more difficult viewing on an 80 column screen.
HTML could use well-crafted stylesheets to fit the medium, adjusting to look
as good as possible on anything from a Palm Pilot to a gigantic 23",
hernia-inducing 2048x1536 CRT display with TrueType fonts and anti-aliasing.

> Noone says you need html e-mail to send pictures.  That's what
> mime attachments are for. Mime and HTML are two totally different
> things and the fact that you mix them up calls your entire argument
> into question.

Unless I misunderstand how attachments work, inline figures cannot be done
with attachments and when inline figures are appropriate, HTML would make a
more reasonable choice. Rob is arguing for expanding our power to communicate
without removing options for people that wish for a more spartan lifestyle. He
believes it can be done and wishes to argue with dismantling artificial
barriers that people have erected, like the eternal call of "don't post HTML!"

> > So which hassle is more important? The point of technology should be
> > to make things easier, not just backward compatible forever.
> 
> I'll agree on this point, but I still believe text is much
> easier than HTML.

This doesn't address the point, though. Your statement is "text is much easier
[for me] than HTML" yet Rob's point is that we can all communicate without
imposing that low level of functionality on everyone else at the same time.

> If you even want to use HTML e-mail, go ahead, just don't expect me
> to correspond with you.  If you really want things to change,
> go out and fix it yourself.  Myself, I'd much rather spend
> my time worrying about things that truly mean something,
> like defeating the CBDPTA.

I got the impression that you were using Evolution from part of this
discussion. It renders HTML just fine, AFAICT, so why would you refuse to
correspond with him if he uses HTML? Are you honestly saying that you are
using a tool that allows you to read his email just fine but because he uses
HTML you refuse to do so?

Regards,
matt

-- 
Matt Matthews     \ ph: 919.660.2811        \ Use GNU/Linux  _o) w00t
Duke Univ., Postdoc\ jvmatthe at math.duke.edu  \____________   /\\
Dept. of Mathematics\ http://www.math.duke.edu/~jvmatthe/ \ _\_V