[OT] Text vs HTML

[Ben Scott]

2009/3/17 Greg Rundlett (freephile) <greg at freephile.com>:
> Aren't GNHLUG lists configured that way?

<list_admin>

  They're mainly configured with the stock defaults (except when
they're not, heh).  If consensus of the list membership is that HTML
stripping should be turned on, it's easy enough to do so.

  Note that a few people complaining loudly is not consensus.  :)  I'm
not exactly sure how we'd gauge consensus of the list.  I don't think
we can ask for a majority when we don't even know how many people we
really have reading.

  FWIW, there are currently 273 apparently-working addresses
subscribed to gnhlug-discuss.  Addresses != people.

</list_admin>

> As an aside, I'd be in favor of Google changing the descriptions to
> "non-standard" and "standard text"

<personal_opinion>

  (Somewhat playing devil's advocate here.)  MIME
multipart/alternative is well-defined; HTML is well-defined.  I'm not
sure why using those specifications as they were intended yields
"non-standard".  The Internet is built on "rough consensus and working
code", and it seems HTML mail has achieved that more than many other
things we're pleased to call "standard".  (Ever try to get two
different IPsec implementations to interoperate?  *shudder*)

  Don't get me wrong, I think HTML mail is overrated, usually
annoying, often abused, and occasionally outright dangerous.  But I'm
also a big believer in "it takes all kinds".

  I generally avoid posting HTML mail on this list because I know
there are some who actively dislike it, it's mostly not needed, and
workarounds do exist.  But on occasion I've found it would have been
convenient to just hyperlink something, rather than resorting to
cumbersome manual footnotes and URLs in plaintext.

</personal_opinion>

-- Ben