I'm
late to this thread but thought since I have an exactly opposite
view to the views expressed on this thread, I might as well stick my
neck out. I absolutely love emails that utilize HTML because they
can provide a richness to the communication that plain text cannot.
Pet Weiss
did the best job of succinctly summarizing reasons why so many listowners
seem to abhor HTML in emails, so I might was well pick on his
replies:
Pete Weiss wrote:
>Because:
>
>1) some email clients sent simultaneous straight ASCII AND HTMLized
text:
>the recipients certainly don't need to receive both
But
this format allows an email client to read the message, either in its
living color version (HTML) complete with various fonts, colors and
sizes, or, if an older client, in its straight text version.
>2) some email clients don't understand
HTML
I
don't know the percentage, but it must be small and growing smaller by
the day. Gad, folks can get Netscape or Explorer for free!
The
question is, do we dumb down everybody else for the sake of a few
behind-the-curve subscribers? Or do we move forward with the
technology and all that it promises?
>3) archives become greatly expanded
The
growth of archives due to HTML is miniscule as compared with the
ever-expanding disk drive sizes. I just picked up a 12 Gig hard
drive for $250. It would take years and years of archiving just to
fill it up even half way (okay, I didn't actually do the math so if you
want to nail me here, go for it).
>4) many folks would sooner not have attachments
since they may not be
>able to process them
Again,
why dumb down the works for the sake of a few who refuse to keep
up?
Well, just
thought I'd stir the old pot. Kinda needed the break.
;-)
Stephen
C. Nill, J.D.
AMERICAN PHILANTHROPY REVIEW
30021 Tomas Street, Suite 300
Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688 USA
Telephone: 949-589-5938
Facsimile: 949-589-4399
For information on our Internet discussion forums, visit