On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 10:00 PM, Alan Gresley wrote:
>
> On 20/07/2011 2:29 PM, Ghodmode wrote:
>
>> I'm not going anywhere, but you have a point. Some people seem to be
>> disproportionately upset by the topic.
>
> The reason that text is used is mainly due to security issues and encoding
> (m
On 20/07/2011 2:29 PM, Ghodmode wrote:
I'm not going anywhere, but you have a point. Some people seem to be
disproportionately upset by the topic.
The reason that text is used is mainly due to security issues and
encoding (mono-space). My email client is permanently set to only show
text an
On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 6:42 PM, Mark Henderson wrote:
>
> On 20 July 2011 11:59, Ghodmode wrote:
> > Okay, so I change my email settings every time I send to CSS-discuss
> > so that it's plain-text, but I have to ask... why?
>
> In case you haven't already noticed, you are going to get *flamed*
On Wednesday, July 20, 2011 12:12:26 pm Ghodmode wrote:
> Ya I shouldn't have said "there aren't any", but I was hoping someone
> would comment with the name of one that doesn't. No one has yet...
> Not even you.
> What's "TA-ships"?
Teaching assistantships. Any grad student teaching a class, wh
On Wednesday, July 20, 2011, 12:59:45 AM, Ghodmode wrote:
> There aren't any contemporary email applications that can't handle HTML. Is
> anyone using one?
---
Er.. I am. At least, I'm using an email client that doesn't by default
render HTML (it also doesn't retrieve external resources such as
FWIW, I think that Ghodmode has every right to ask
why HTML e-mails are prohibited on this list, even
though I personally rejoice that they are. I also
appreciate the non-confrontational way in which he
has presented his views and responded to the view of
others. However. In my e-mail client (S
On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 12:09 PM, Ted Rolle Jr. wrote:
>
> Here is the usual course of these conversations:
> People fight about something trivial (However, I don't believe this issue is
> trivial!)
> All leave the list forever for two weeks.
> Then come back and ignore each other.
I'm not going
On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 11:59 AM, Claude Needham wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 8:36 PM, Micky Hulse
> wrote:
>> gmail + html emails + iphone >> mail.app = hard to read
>> I wish gmail had an option to strip HTML from all incoming e-mails.
>> Sorry to contribute to this OT thread...
>> :: craw
On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 11:11 AM, Tim Climis wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, July 20, 2011 7:59:45 am Ghodmode wrote:
> > There aren't any contemporary email applications that can't handle HTML. Is
> > anyone using one?
>
> This obviously isn't true, as we've heard from at least two people. I work
> fo
Here is the usual course of these conversations:
People fight about something trivial (However, I don't believe this issue is
trivial!)
All leave the list forever for two weeks.
Then come back and ignore each other.
...
Ted, almost 70, and appreciates the ability to change type faces/sizes in
the
On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 8:36 PM, Micky Hulse wrote:
> gmail + html emails + iphone >> mail.app = hard to read
> I wish gmail had an option to strip HTML from all incoming e-mails.
> Sorry to contribute to this OT thread...
> :: crawls back into hole ::
I've seen the screen under those circumstanc
gmail + html emails + iphone >> mail.app = hard to read
I wish gmail had an option to strip HTML from all incoming e-mails.
Sorry to contribute to this OT thread...
:: crawls back into hole ::
__
css-discuss [css-d@lists.css-dis
On Jul 20, 2011, at 12:17 PM, Ghodmode wrote:
> Troll?
I'm surprised the listmom hasn't called a halt to this discussion yet.
Hopefully he will do so soon.
PS - I'd be the first to unsubscribe if this this list start allowing html mail.
Philippe
--
Philippe Wittenbergh
http://l-c-n.com/
On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 10:15 AM, Ed Seedhouse wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 6:52 PM, Ghodmode wrote:
>
> Any html email i get gets dumped straight into the trash bin by my
> mail reader, at my instruction. HTML is a web page markup language.
> Email is not the web.
Wow! ... harsh!
Troll?
On Wednesday, July 20, 2011 7:59:45 am Ghodmode wrote:
> There aren't any contemporary email applications that can't handle HTML. Is
> anyone using one?
This obviously isn't true, as we've heard from at least two people. I work
for a major American university, and the email system all our gradu
I just performed a test with a short message:
Unadorned:
This is yellow. This is Garamond typeface. This is Comic Sans typeface.
This is BOLD. This is italicized. This is underlined.
This is in a different size.
Note emoticon --->
Adorned:
This is yellow. *This is underlined.* This is Garam
On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 8:58 AM, Ben Henick wrote:
>
>> There aren't any contemporary email applications that can't handle
>> HTML. Is anyone using one?
>>
>
> There are very few that handle it genuinely well, and the most commonly used
> e-mail client implements an ancient rendering engine with
On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 8:56 AM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
> * Ghodmode wrote:
>>Is it a CSS-Discuss community policy, or the policy of an individual
>>who happens to be the list administrator? I suspect that it's based
>>on old practices for reasons that are no longer valid.
>
> Noting that this k
* Ghodmode wrote:
>Is it a CSS-Discuss community policy, or the policy of an individual
>who happens to be the list administrator? I suspect that it's based
>on old practices for reasons that are no longer valid.
Noting that this kind of discussion, even of marked offtopic, is usually
not particu
Okay, so I change my email settings every time I send to CSS-discuss
so that it's plain-text, but I have to ask... why?
Is it a CSS-Discuss community policy, or the policy of an individual
who happens to be the list administrator? I suspect that it's based
on old practices for reasons that are no
20 matches
Mail list logo
