Florin Iucha wrote: > On Thu, Jul 01, 2010 at 09:54:11AM -0500, Justin Krejci wrote: >> I also don't see what is so bad about HTML mail in principal. > > .,,. > ,;;*;;;;, > .-'``;-');;. > /' .-. /*;; > .' \d \;; .;;;, > / o ` \; ,__. ,;*;;;*;, > \__, _.__,' \_.-') __)--.;;;;;*;;;;, > `""`;;;\ /-')_) __) `\' ';;;;;; > ;*;;; -') `)_) |\ | ;;;;*; > ;;;;| `---` O | | ;;*;;; > *;*;\| O / ;;;;;* > ;;;;;/| .-------\ / ;*;;;;; > ;;;*;/ \ | '. (`. ;;;*;;; > ;;;;;'. ; | ) \ | ;;;;;; > ,;*;;;;\/ |. / /` | ';;;*; > ;;;;;;/ |/ / /__/ ';;; > '*;;*/ | / | ;*; > `""""` `""""` ;' > > In principle, I don't see what's wrong with ponies in e-mail, as well. > > >> >> Perhaps various composers/implementations would be better but the >> principal I think is very useful and effective and has made a lot of >> communication much easier (for good or ill) for more people using >> the internet. > > Why? Formatting. It can be much easier to convey information in a way that is more easily understood by the recipient. > >> Using HTML >> email is a lot easier for people to communicate than plain. > > How? There are column limitations, there are formatting limitations (or nearly a complete lack of formatting), embedding images and other media, etc. > >> People are not >> interested in > > References? Apparently my train of thought was never completed here... And now I don't recall it anymore. > > Or at least do you have a compelling argument on why it works for you? > > I have asked last month for real-world examples on how HTML e-mail is > helping people get the job done, have fun, whatever... And I got no > positive answers. > > I'm still waiting. I'm genuinely curious. > > Cheers, > florin Things or sections can be more catchy or certain aspects of a message can be more stressed in a particular way. Embedding media is significant like images, long lines, color coding/highlighting, variable font sizes. A large blob of text can be hard to read but a few words or sentences with some bright colors, images, etc can be noteworthy and get thru a lot more meaningfully. If you really want to empahsize a "...we have to DO this..." and "...we have to NOT DO this..." would be a lot more effective if there was some colors, bold font, etc. Or if you have a series of images that you want to comment on each one at a time it makes it a lot easier to embed in message with comments above/below each vs attached images then each image has to be opened one at a time and corresponding comments need to be associated correctly or else an image editor used to embed comments directly onto the images which is stupid and makes it impossible to do a text search then. Advertisers jobs are much easier if they can include HTML in their email. E-cards. E-Coupons. You can make messages more crisp and official and have their own flavor and style vs having your messages look exactly like everyone elses in the world (unless a thriving ascii pony art community were to blossom) but even still its not the same. I am big fan of fixwidth fonts but you use that in HTML and still get other benefits of non-plain-text based emails. Basically many/all the reasons we use word processors and other fancy docoument editors for our documents instead of notepad/pico like editors also apply to email. Sometimes plaintext is best overall. Sometimes not. One more, URL embedding. Let's say you have one or more lengthy URLs to include. You can make a short bit of text or an image be a link to the URL or you can just spew out the entire URL in all its glory for something like Check out this cool <a href=snip>map easter egg</a> of Minnesota State and Lake Superior VS http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&source=s_d&saddr=110+Union+Street+Southeast, +Minneapolis,+MN+55455-0153+(University+of+Minnesota)&daddr=44.952368,+-93.1 03092&hl=en&geocode=CSkjttoYDj3dFe9ErgIdYWNx-iGbU9lxb_d-9Cl9u4KnFy2zUjGKAeM0 yc-MWw%3B&mra=pe&mrcr=0&sll=44.965241,-93.170034&sspn=0.048765,0.14308&ie=UT F8&ll=44.952353,-93.103042&spn=0.001524,0.004471&t=h&z=19