[sclug] HTML vs plain old text

[Tom Chance]

Neil,

On Friday 03 Dec 2004 20:12, Neil Haughton wrote:
> As an observer it strikes me that there is a discernible element of
> inverted snobbery over this whole plain-text/HTML thing, which does the
> Linux fraternity little credit.

That much I agree with. Well, it's not that it doesn't do the GNU/Linux world 
credit, it just puts people off when they face geeks with very different 
priorities ;-)

It's a bit like mailing list etiquette: it's easy to forget people don't know 
the first thing about it when you feel tempted to tell them all about top 
posting, appropriate cropping, starting new threads, indicating if a reply is 
off-topic, and so on!

Sometimes I think every geek should be forced to work in a IT training 
centre... it certainly stopped my snobbery in its tracks!

> >Worst of all, it's unecessary. .... it's ... pointless.
>
> Surely it's not pointless - see above. If font embellishments were
> pointless they would never be used in printed books. They allow greater
> expression, and add clarity of meaning.

Sorry, I meant that it's usually pointless. Of all the HTML messages I've 
received from people, only a few have ever needed HTML... they usually just 
have unformatted text in them.

I personally I have no problem with friends sending me HTML mail to make it 
look nice, or to help them express themselves. I know it's them, a quick scan 
through the un-rendered code shows me it's not a spammer impersonating a 
friend, so I just tell KMail to show the HTML.

> In the nicest possible way, if an html email upsets your day, you really
> need something worthwhile to worry about! ;-)

Hey, I specifically said it just _adds_ to a bad day, in the same way that 
seeing a Tory on TV or burning your pasta can send you over the edge ;-)

Regards,
Tom