This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the cygwin project.
Re: html email
- From: mwoehlke <mwoehlke at tibco dot com>
- To: cygwin-talk at cygwin dot com
- Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 15:55:50 -0500
- 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: The Cygwin-Talk Maiming List <cygwin-talk at cygwin dot com>
Ethan Tira-Thompson wrote:
Resending as per Mike's PPIOSPE (not sure why the 'reply' to you went
private, unless your original mail was private to me? In which case
PPIOSPE back-atcha :)
"Mike"? Who's "Mike"? :-)
As for your question, your question, a: because I can't set reply-to
(AFAIK Thunderbird doesn't let you set it on individual groups, which is
needed as I also subscribe to several non-Cygwin lists which would not
be amused if my reply-to was a Cygwin address), and b: because I CC'd
you, not knowing if you were watching cygwin-talk. Welcome! Watch for
falling hippos. Anyway, yes I did send to you privately, but *also* to
the list. :-) But no worries, you're here now.
And since you're here, I'll copy my reply (sans prior clarification) for
anyone else's benefit.
All of those links you provide are arguments against HTML-only email.
(Right, because I meant "HTML *mail*", as clarified above and in private
mail :-). So I've snipped the bits that were only relevant to that slip
on my part.)
I agree that's a bad idea. But when most mail programs send both plain
text and HTML, the arguments are moot. As long as the plain text
version is there, what's the big deal?
Keep in mind that this is a *mailing list*, and there are additional
concerns... like digests, archives, and that the list is proactively
preventing people from abusing HTML for nefarious purposes. That, and
you forgot the bandwidth issue.
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.
In a word, bandwidth.
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
Oh? Funny, when I look at source, keywords are green, comments are gray,
normal text is cyan, etc, and everything has a dark blue background. See
what I mean? :-) There are many ways to highlight code, and not all are
the same. That isn't necessarily a bad thing, I'm just pointing out that
you and I may have different ideas on how it should be done.
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 platform.
Never saw that; what editor do you use? Anyway, AFAIK KATE doesn't do
this (and I *dare* you to call it/KDE a "lesser platform" :-)).
We are Microsoft. You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile. --Badtech