Why this phobia to HTML mail?

[Steve Lamb]

On Mon, Sep 18, 2000 at 03:06:19PM +0100, David Gaskill wrote:
> able to read e-mails sent to me in this format and out of courtesy I reply to 
> html e-mails from my clients in the same format. 

    Worst thing to do considering most people do it out of ignorance.

> of those quaintly named RFCs on the subject of html e-mail but I suspect 
> that the de facto standard is rapidly becoming Outlook Express. 

    You don't get it, do you?  De facto standards are not the way to build an
internet.  You have to guarentee that each part with interoperate with every
other part.  Imagine that, internet, interoperate.  
 
> Large numbers use this application,with or without html formatting, 
> because it enables them to communicate with other people; if it didn't they 
> wouldn't. 

    Large numbers use that application because it is preinstalled on every PC
on the planet and they don't look for anything else.  If PMMail were
preinstalled on every PC on the planet then they would use PMMail.

> There is no body that issues RFCs for the English language; it evolves,  
> usage and conventions change and a lexicographers record these changes 
> but don't initiate them. There are some here in the UK that deplore the 
> new words and changing usage often initiated by your compatriots; if they 
> knew what html was I don't doubt they would deplore its use in e-mails ...

    The difference is that the humans involved can adapt as needed, though
with some difficulty.  OTOH computers, in and of themselves, cannot adapt.
When you break standards or venture into the realm of de facto standards set
by market majority which can change on a whim you lose all chances of a
reasonable expectation of reliability.  Why?  Because when you don't have a
standard separate of implementation to hold people against and instead call
someone's implementation the standard it means everyone else is at a
disadvantage and the person who is considered the standard can break it if
anyone gets too close to them.

    Remember Windows 3.11?  Why was it released?  To "fix" a problem in the
memory addressing routines and allow up to 2Gb.  Anyone here ever hear of a
2Gb Windows 3.11 machine?  No?  Of course not.  The reason that "fix" was put
out was because it was a nice way to break Win-OS/2 since it caused an
incompatibility in the API between Windows and OS/2.  

    The point still stands, that there is no standard and the de facto
standard is not enough.

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