Rodolfo J. Paiz wrote:
At 00:55 3/7/2004, you wrote:
While appearance may be eye candy, it does not add to the value of the text content.
[...]
two words...... security & efficiency.
<flame> Two more words: mental myopia.
You flame instead of duscuss?? How childish.
The very basic premise of "[appearance] does not add to the value of the text content" is so wrong, that I'm loath to explain it to you... since you probably won't even try to understand a different point of view, let alone fully comprehend it.
I find Scott's analogy of color vs. black-and-white TV apropos, and many others could be made in that vein. The primary problems (i.e. virii and backdoors in IE and OE) are not caused by HTML per se but rather by weak and insecure implementations thereof. Thus you are assuming a cause-and-effect relationship where such is not really the case. Yes, in the majority of cases (Windows users in particular) HTML mail is dangerous. But HTML itself is not the root cause of the problem.
HTML is certainly not the root threat, but an easily used conduit to reach the unknowing or unwary. On some operating systems and with some browsers even those who are aware cannot prevent every attack from being successful.
HTML used in mailing lists reaches a much larger audience than when used in a personal mail to one or a few people. Thus greater risk, and several orders of magnitude larger usage of resources.
However, that is the less-important point. Presentation is always, has always been, and will always be one component of the value of anything. Given ANY two objects or concepts of equal value in all other respects (ceteris paribus, if you will) but where one of the two has better presentation, 99.999% of human beings WILL see a difference between the two and choose the one with better presentation. (In case you missed it, note the "of equal value in all other respects").
Of course, in context and in the right venue.
I am not saying that good presentation can or will overcome poor value in content... although that can and does happen. I am saying that it is foolish and blind in the extreme to write off presentation as irrelevant. For one example, in oh-so-many of the business email messages that I write, I specifically switch to using HTML in order to get properly-indented, numbered paragraphs or bulleted lists. I do so in order to include images inside my message so that the reader (even that blithering idiot over in wherever who can barely turn on the computer) will instantly be able to see them and comment. I do so in order to communicate my content more clearly, cleanly, and quickly (with better presentation, readers understand more quickly and easily... else the whole publishing industry would be vastly different). I do it because I make more money when my clients or my bosses react favorably to my ideas, and they react better when I present it in a more attractive and readable way.
There are valid reasons to use text-only email in some situations. There are also lots and lots of valid reasons to use HTML mail in other situations. And there is NO reason to state that either choice A or choice B is invalid in all cases, other than sheer unrelenting fanaticism.
I do not recall anyone said ALL cases.
Anyone who says that HTML email is unfailingly and unequivocally useless and dangerous in all situations and for all people is either blind, stupid, or totally out of touch with the technological evolution and basic societal constructs of the human race.
I never said it is useless. The discussion was on why it should not be used on mailing lists.
Additonal bandwidth, extra time required for download for those who lack broadband or faster, and the sheer volume of messages make html much less than optimal for a mailing list. Also, the threat of virii and the necessity of scanning for such add to the delays, become of concern to the relay/hosting entities, and impact overall performance.
Within the proper environment (your company mail, etc) it certainly does have a place. Some realistic expectations can be made that most users in that environment will have reasonably consistent hardware/software and the performance of same will be comparable for all users.
Consistency cannot be assumed for the general internet populace, so presentations (as you put it) should be geared to much more than 90% of those receiving. Text will be compatible for 100%. Even though some loss may be seen in presentation value, nothing will be lost in content. No one can claim 100% compatability for html with the same audience.
Thus html has no place in large mailing lists, and not for mass audience general discussions where the extra overhead caused by the 'eye candy' gets in the way of efficiency.
Sadly, there seem to be a a few of you folks out there somewhere. </flame>
Again, flaming instead of trying to understand the specific context.
