HTMLised email

[David Gaskill]

On Sat, 11 Dec 1999 16:46:46 +0000 (GMT), Simon Bowring wrote:

>On Sat, 11 Dec 1999 12:24:04, David Gaskill wrote:
>
>>What's wrong with HTML e-mail anyway? 
>
>1. The internet can only work if people obey the standards 
>   described in the RFC documents (amonst others).  Much like
>   driving only works well if poeple agree to obey the rules
>   (which side of the road you drive on etc).

I am not too sure about the driving analogy; these days the Internet tends to 
evolve and RFCs follow the event. A classic example of this is frames in 
browsers. 

There may be no RFC for HTML e-mail but I have yet to receive an e-mail 
in this format which PMmail is unable to read, (it may put the background 
image as an attachment but that doesn't stop me reading the e-mail) . 

>2. There is no agreed standard for encoding "rich text" emails
>   or news messgaes (i.e. those with fonts/colour etc), HTML
>   is used but is neither standard nor suitable.
>   There is no way of knowing/specifying which features of
>   HTML need supporting, so there is no way that HTML-ised emails
>   can be guaranteed to work as intended accross different email
>   programs even if they both support HTML (they will support differnt
>   feature sets).

That's true - the thing is still evolving but as I said above I have yet to receive 
a HTML e-mail that PMmail can't read. 
>
>3. Companies that like to try and generate a monopoly by
>   "extending" (i.e. breaking) standards started this standards
>   busting "Rich text" email nonsense in an attempt to make 
>   people who don't understand the inter-operability issues (
>   and why should they?) use the features so that they encourage 
>   other people to move to the allededly "better" email software 
>   (not just MS, but Lotus and Netscape too for example).

The Internet is the ultimate free market and so of course this will happen but 
it is significant that virtually all e-mail clients now incorporate the facility to 
send and receive HTML e-mail so a consensus is evolving. 

>Email does allow you to attach arbitrary files to email, and that is
>basically what HTML-ised emails are, an empty (or bare) email with
>an HTML doc attatched, Sadly, email software that originates HTML-ised 
>mail rarely (of ever) identifies such basics such as what format
>of HTML they are using (HTML v1.x/2.x/3.x/4.x etc).

Agreed, but see above. 

>Lets keep email text-based and standards-compliant
>so that every one can interchange messages without pain.

I feel no pain. PMmail makes legible everything that anybody a has so far 
sent me. 

>Some companies are trying to remove the "inter" for "internet"!

I really don't think this is true but it is probably  true that Microsoft is more 
important in setting Internet standards than those that compose RFCs. No 
committee has sanctified Word 97 but that hasn't stopped it becoming a de 
facto standard. 




David