HTML Rendering in PMMail/2

[Steve Lamb]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Wednesday, September 13, 2000, 12:22:30 PM, Ralph wrote:
> So, what's your point?

    This...


> 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.
       ^^^

    Show me where Ralph Cohen was appointed grand pubah of all HTML email and
I'll concede that the standard of Cohen for what features HTML should render
as being a standard.  Until then the subset you want implemented is most
likely different than the subsets thousands upon thousands of other people
want, and expect to be implemented.  Your opinion on the matter weighs in as
equally as theirs and none of those opinions are a /standard/.

> Remember, a lot of the HTML email is being sent by clueless

    Well, I, Steve Lamb, Grand poobah of what HTML email is sent will state
right now that /MY/ HTML email is from professional sources like those already
mentioned.

> individuals who are not prone to including cascading style sheets in their
> personal communications.

    That's find and dandy.  However Grand Poobah Steve Lamb declares that is
irrelevant since his mail is not filled with emails from the little people.

> 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.

    Grand Poobah Steve Lamb considered this position admirable but irrelevant
to the point at hand.  Unless, of course you're trying to make the argument
that a feature should be implemented based on the ignorance of others and not
on standards from the intelligence of others?  If so Grand Poobah Steve Lamb
points out that planning based on ignorance is hardly a way to make a viable
system.

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

    Nono, Grand Poobah of all HTML email sent, thank you.  Please use the
appropriate title when addressing Grand Poobah Steve Lamb at all times.

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

    Actually, nothing to do with Outlook per se and you're right, I was
thinking of a different one whose name eludes me right now which does exploit
HTML, namely the automatic rendering of HTML including the execution of
embedded scripts.

> I guess that's why there will never be a demand for color television or
> color film.  Who needs em?

    Different medium, irrelevant.

> Why don't municipalities save money and simply make traffic lights using
> three different intensities of bulbs instead of three different colors?

    Different medium, irrelevant.

> 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?

    Different medium, irrelevant.

> 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!

    No, one cannot communicate more effectively with color.  One can
communicate differently with color.  What matters most in email and PRINTED
WORD which is what email most represents is the words themselves and the order
of the words.  Notice, too, that I have added /emphasis/ to this paragraph
without color or any special coding.  Oft times color and other fancy tricks
get in the way of effective communication, not help it.

> That's certainly not the primary objection I have seen, and it's not
> one that I've ever advanced myself.

    Then you have not been reading the thread, have you.  One person said that
it shouldn't be there, another (Simon, I believe) stated that it was a lack of
standards and most people have shifted to that focus.

> As I said before, a very small subset of basic HTML tags would be more than
> sufficient for 99% of all email communications.

    When that standard comes out, fine.  Hop to it.

> As I said in response to Rodney, my point in posing these questions to
> BSW was to elicit a response from BSW.

    Ralph...  Hate to break it to you, and this is no slight to either Trevor
or Jimmy, but this list doesn't exist in BSW's eyes as far as I can tell and
/nothing/ that is said on it makes a damned whit of difference to Thomas
Bradford or any other suit in that company that I am aware of.  We are a
holdover of the Southsoft days that BSW has not officially recognized AFAIK
outside of the participation of Jimmy and Trevor and any posts those two
people have made on the web site pointing people to this list (one that I
could find).

    If you /really/ wanted to elicit a response from BSW it would have gone to
BSW, Thomas Bradford or Peter Nielson directly.

> 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.

    So am I.  I've switched clients.  I use /two/ other clients, in fact.  I'm
more active on TB!'s normal and beta lists than I am here.  I have started
planning writing my own client.  Why?  Because as far as I can see BSW has no
plans to do anything with PMMail.  I got that vague idea when B&I's release
schedule slipped and they sold it to BSW.  I run this list for the community
for PMMail that is left.  I've given up hope ages ago and it would take quite
a bit from BSW to revive it.  Again, no slight against Jimmy or Trevor because
they, unlike the suits that are "above" them have actually proven their
resolve when it comes to helping the users of PMMail.  I hold them in much
higher light than the rest of BSW because they /are/ here and, more
importantly, they are /ACTIVE/.

    If I wanted the treatment that BSW proper has given its users from what I
can gather here, I could go to the morgue and get the same cold shoulder from
a cadaver.


- --
         Steve C. Lamb         | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
         ICQ: 5107343          | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
- -------------------------------+---------------------------------------------

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5i

iQA/AwUBOb/2PXpf7K2LbpnFEQLJ1ACdF3Hg1BLQVM4NvmcoNVLc7feiiWoAoJyh
VWt4fIrMbXQiRjL4C3D+Z4Nf
=jX6O
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----