This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the cygwin project.
Re: html email
- From: Christopher Faylor <cgf-no-personal-reply-please at cygwin dot com>
- To: cygwin-talk at sourceware dot org, The Cygwin-Talk Maiming List <cygwin-talk at cygwin dot com>
- Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 16:51:04 -0400
- Subject: Re: html email
- References: <CEFD7032-DD32-4F1E-8D2F-C706BE73F470@andrew.cmu.edu> <44EF5431.email@example.com> <C33FC55B-5CDC-4FB3-942E-43F7DB5819AC@andrew.cmu.edu> <44F33FDF.firstname.lastname@example.org> <BFC61D08-4C48-4FE5-AEE5-471E2638357C@andrew.cmu.edu>
- Reply-to: cygwin-talk at cygwin dot com
- Reply-to: The Cygwin-Talk Maiming List <cygwin-talk at cygwin dot com>
On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 04:23:24PM -0400, Ethan Tira-Thompson wrote:
>There's a well defined way to support both plain text and rich text
>in email. I don't see why the plain text crowd has to say the rich
>text crowd can't coexist when there's a viable way to support both.
There is a meta-issue implied by discussions like these. You've entered
a zone where this kind of thing has been part of the culture for ten
years. Obviously the people who run the sourceware.org site have strong
feelings about not allowing html mail. What special qualifications do
you think you bring to the table which would sway someone? Do you have
a lot of experience running a technical site like this one? Are you an
expert in MIME?
FWIW, if you really want to bring about change, then the people who
decide about these things (I'm one of a handful of people with opinions
about this) hang out at the overseers mailing list at sourceware.org.
I can, again, say with very great certainty that none of them are
interested in changing the default for the site.
>>If you plan to highlight your example code (and by what standard?),
>>you have too much time on your hands.
>Standard? Keywords are blue, comments are red, that kind of thing
>needs a standard?
>In any case, when I copy and paste code from my editor, it can retain
>the syntax coloring. It's very straightforward. But even so, piping
>it through enscript isn't difficult either if I was on a lesser