Why this phobia to HTML mail?

[David Gaskill]

On Mon, 18 Sep 2000 07:14:45 -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:

>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.

These people are my bread and butter so light consider it prudent not to 
question their e-mail format.
>
>> 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.  

You may wish that standards were generated by some Supreme international 
body with powers to enforce its will but that just isn't the case. Ralph has 
explained the situation better than I could have done. 

It may not be ideal that Microsoft or any other organisation determine standards 
but, to quote Ralph, in real life that is what happens.. 

After the abject failure of my allusion to the Watergate burglars I am reluctant 
to mention King Canute but, like it or not I suspect that the advance of html e-
mail is as unstoppable as the tide.
 
>> 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.

No doubt. 

>> 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.  

I hear what you saying but I see no evidence of any reduction in reliability

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

Until Steve Lamb assumes global power de facto is all we are going to get so 
we'd better try and make the best of it... 



David