HTML Rendering in PMMail/2

[Ralph Cohen]

On Wed, 13 Sep 2000 10:27:35 -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:

>Wednesday, September 13, 2000, 9:13:09 AM, Ralph wrote:
>> 1.  This discussion started because of a statement on PMMail's web page
>> that HTML rendering is a feature included in PMMail on all supported
>> platforms.
>
>    To which they have stated that OS/2 is supported less than Windows.  :)
>

No, that's not true with regard to the statement on their web site -
which is what precipitated my question in the first place.


>> 2.  Regarding the questions about what level of HTML needs to be
>> supported, I think that HTML 2.0 would be more than adequate for my
>> needs.  The HTML mail I get is not complex whatsoever.
>
>    Order from Access Micro or Amazon.com and that'll change.  This
>underscores what is being said.  What is an acceptable level?  To you 2.0 is
>acceptable.  To others it is not.
>

So, what's your point?  Implementing even a small subset of tags
(inline links, line breaks, simple tables) would allow the effective
rendering of probably 99% of the HTML email I receive.  Remember, a lot
of the HTML email is being sent by clueless individuals who are not
prone to including cascading style sheets in their personal
communications.  As for the commercial sites sending HTML email, I
think they are foolish if they don't offer a plain text version as
well, and will suffer the consequences.  I feel the same way about
sites that only offer documents in MSWord 7 format - what a stupid
waste.


>> 3.  Not liking HTML email will not make it go away.  Automatically
>> filtering all incoming HTML email into your trash folder will also not
>> make it go away.
>
>    Sure it will.  It goes in the trash, the trash gets cleared out, it goes
>away with the trash.
>

You are surely the King of de Nile!<g>


>
>    As a user of PMMail2k and later The Bat! I can say I have experienced it
>quite nicely and dislike it every step of the way.  As someone in the IT
>department of a large company who got inundated with 100+ of the lovebug virus
>in one day I can say that there are definite problems with it.
>

>From my understanding, the lovebug virus had nothing to do with HTML
but everything to do with MS Outlook.  


>> 4.  I agree that it is inappropriate to send HTML emails to mailing
>> lists and the like.  However, I also believe that certain types of
>> communications can benefit from minor HTMLization making them easier
>> for the recipient to to read and act upon.
>
>    This is untrue.  When you can explain why most books are still black on
>off-white instead of neon green and flashing red we'll talk.  Colors and the
>like are not needed for effective communication.
>

I guess that's why there will never be a demand for color television or
color film.  Who needs em?<g>  Why don't municipalities save money and
simply make traffic lights using three different intensities of bulbs
instead of three different colors?  Why spend two to three times more
for a color advertisement than for black & white ad just because
studies have consistently shown that the readership of color ads is 2-3
times higher than for black & white ads?  Hate to break it to you, but
color matters and is extremely effective in enhancing communication. 
Can you communicate without it?  Sure.  But can you often communicate
more effectively with it?  You bet!


>> 5.  I understand that email was originally intended to text only, but I
>> also also understand that copper telephone lines were originally
>> intended to carry voice only and not high speed data signaling like
>> DSL.  So what?  Pandora's box has been opened and there's not a
>> snowball's chance in Hell that we're ever going to be able to shove
>> HTML emails back into the box so we may as well deal with them as best
>> we can.  Denial isn't going to make it disappear.
>
>    Nor are flawed analogies going to advance it, either.  What most people
>object to is that there is no standard.

That's certainly not the primary objection I have seen, and it's not
one that I've ever advanced myself.  As I said before, a very small
subset of basic HTML tags would be more than sufficient for 99% of all
email communications.  Anything more complex should be posted on a
website for viewing.  FWIW, most of the objections I have seen about
HTML email center around the added byte counts not the lack of
standards.

>
>> 6.  FUD.  It surprises me how much FUD is being floated around here
>> about the horror and impossibility of incorporating basic HTML
>> rendering in PMMail/2.  I've seen claims that to do so would take BSW
>> several years and inestimable amounts of money which would surely
>> bankrupt the company and inevitably lead to the downfall of Western
>> civilization.
>
>    Really?  I consider it reasoned given even a cursory look at other
>projects like Opera, Mozilla, IE, Netscape, etc, etc, etc.  We can deduce a


As I said in response to Rodney, my point in posing these questions to
BSW was to elicit a response from BSW.  I think that there has been
more than ample evidence that people on this list (no, not you) are
extremely capable of making up excuses for BSW and apologizing on their
behalf, but unless they are being paid by BSW then their responses are
of only passing interest.  I don't mean that to sound rude, it's just
that I'm long past being frustrated by the curtain of silence that has
surrounded PMMail since it was taken over by BSW and I am anxious to
hear what they have to say.

Ralph
rpcohen@neurotron.com