Attachment test.

[Fairlight]

>From inside the gravity well of a singularity, Brian K. White shouted:
> On 3/22/2010 6:03 PM, Fairlight wrote:
> 
> I think html provides a valuable feature in an ideal and non-heinous way 
> to dumb clients that don't support it, much as mime-formatting does.

I think HTML is a valuable technology for web sites.  Personally I don't
feel email ever should have been bastardised to the point where you have a
2k message in text/plain in alternative part 1, and then a ~25-75%+
(usually on the higher end, in my experiences) bloated text/html version of
the same message in alternative part 2.  

The fact that many mail clients use -the- most bloated way of marking up
content (every single paragraph, or sometimes sentence having its own font
and colour styles embedded inline...without using classes!) does not make
me feel any better about the bloat.

Using non-alternative, but -only- text/html is just plain stupid, as you're
missing a segment of your audience, especially in a list context--and
especially with a lot of old timers like we have here.

The bottom line philosohically is that text/plain is the lingua franca of
email.  Everyone can interpret and render it 100% faithfully, and it
just plain simplifies matters.

> The fact that some people, even most people, abuse html in a way that is 
> heinous to almost everything and everyone involved with the handling of 
> that mail, is not html's fault, and I don't see why responsible users 
> should be penalized by being denied the functionality.

Well, it isn't and is HTML's fault.  HTML wasn't designed thoroughly enough
to begin with, in hindsight.  The organic shift from version to version
with clearly demonstrable problems regarding backwards compatibility,
deprication, and a mix of the two is...  Well, it got us where we are
today, having programs mark things up explicitly with 3.2 syntax because
that's the way it used to be done, and then adding in XHTML features
because some things were wanted that came later.  And MS just adds in weird
stuff because they're MS.  :)

HTML is not really an example of a specification with a healthy evolution,
if you ask me.

> Unless you are just saying that the rule here has been stated as plain 
> text and so, since that's the rule, there is no possible harm to any 
> legitimate messages or users in simply enforcing it? I can only weakly 
> argue with that if that has ever actually been asserted as a hard rule. 
> I can argue pretty strongly against zero-tolerance in almost any context 
> in general and in this context in particular.

There's never been a hard rule, as Bill said.  It's been a strong
contention of nettiquette for ages, though.  And the easiest way to make
the attendant problems go away is enforcement, yeah.  Call it an
administrative fantasy.  :)

The case for arguing against zero tolerance is amusing to me in general.  I
find it amusing when people argue for tolerance in general, really.  People
-love- to spout off about tolerance this, tolerance that...until they run
into someone who's intolerant.  Then these tolerance preaching folk show
their true colours when they're demonstrably entirely intolerant of the
intolerant.  Which point makes them instant hypocrites and tanks their
credibility.  I find myself incredibly suspicious of people that actively
preach any kind of tolerance, since most brands of tolerance are tantamount
to, "Tolerate everyone--as long as they're doing things in a way we find
acceptable."

I avoid the hypocrisy and just speak my mind on any given point.  I can
be flat-out -intolerant-, and while it might be unpopular and unpolitic,
I can't be called a hypocrite when I need to express my displeasure with
something.  Up-front intolerance is a far more honest approach, IMNSHO.
It's also probably healthier, as you don't have to hide anything or bottle
things up--you speak your mind and move on.

mark->
-- 
Audio panton, cogito singularis,