Why this phobia to HTML mail?

[Trevor Smith]

On Fri, 15 Sep 2000 11:28:53 +0100 (BST), Simon Bowring wrote:

>Again: HTML mail is NOT the answer to how to get rich text markup 
>into email. There currently isn't a good standards based answer.
>The best is the "defacto" standard markup that Steve's always talking 
>about. Some mailers actually interpret *bold* and _underlined_ and 
>/italic/ text etc, which is quite a nice feature (as long as it 
>can be easily toggled on and off) [Feature request, Trevor!].

Aw, then I'll have to rethink my *random* and _arbitrary_ use of
/markup/...

But you're right, it would be nice. However, it's a chicken and egg
thing. I doubt enough people send email with those markup styles to
make it worthwhile. Just thinking out loud.

But I've sent it in the to request line.

>You can decide it's ok to ignore all this, and I can decide to argue
>strongly against you, and I have Right on my side ;-) (And my Dad's 
>probably bigger than yours ;-)

I doubt it. My dad's about 6'3" and pushing 250lbs these days. But
don't worry, I agree with everything you've said. Personally I would
love text markup in email and I think it would be useful in some
situations. However, I despise embrace and extend and I agree with
your reasons why HTML email as it is now is the wrong solution.


-- 
 Trevor Smith          |          trevor@haligonian.com
 PGP public key available at: www.haligonian.com/trevor