On Mon, 15 Jun 1998, Deryk Barker wrote:
> > It really comes down to this:
> >
> > You're either in favor of HTML markup in email, or you're not in favor of
> > email being a very rich method of communication compared to speech.
>
> Oh really? And I say that I *am* against HTML in email and I am in
> favour of email's being a rich method of communication?
Strong second! Email should ONLY be straight ASCII text.
> > I don't think we should tolerate email remaining in it's outmoded old form
> > when there's such an easy way to increase it's utility for
> > communication.
>
> As far as I'm concerned, adding bloody HTML tags makes the mail
> *harder* to read and certainly doesn't increase its
> comprehensibility.
Without a doubt.
The bottom line is this: It all revolves around writing skills.
A moderately educated person should be able to express their
thoughts/feelings/wants/desires by using the written word. To use
crutches and gimmicks (such as HTML) is to show a complete lack of written
communications skills. Did Shakespeare need HTML? Did Asimov? Are the
Bible and the Declaration of Independence and the Koran and the Tao
worthless and meaningless because they were written in plane, ordinary
text?
I know that it is to late to stop HTML encoded email. The genie
is out of the bottle. But it is my contention that someone who must
resort to HTML (or any other kind of fancy formating) in order to express
their thoughts is to be pitied. No moderately educated or intelligent
person would need anything more than plane text for email. Period.
---
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new
discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it!) but "That's funny ..."
-- Isaac Asimov
--
PLEASE read the Red Hat FAQ, Tips, Errata and the MAILING LIST ARCHIVES!
http://www.redhat.com/RedHat-FAQ /RedHat-Errata /RedHat-Tips /mailing-lists
To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe" as the Subject.
