"Sebastian G." <seppi@seppig.de> wrote:
> >>> What's wrong with HTML emails without remote content?
> >>
> >> <!doctype stupid><html><head><meta name="foo"
> >> content="bar"><title>baz</title></head><body><p>Nothing, it's very
> >> readible if the receiver's client doesn't support
> >> HTML.</body></html>
> >
> > That's why usually there is also a text/plain part.
>
> usually = not quite often?
I can't confirm that.
> What about MIME? There the plain/text part you get just reads "This is
> a multipart MIME message".
No, that's the prolog of the MIME message, before the first part stats,
so that non-MIME-compliant mail-readers show the fact to the user.
> >> Because there's no standard for it, neither de-jure nor de-facto?
> >> because there is a standard to include some basic formatting
> >> (text/enriched)? [...]
> >
> > MIME is a standard. It allows multipart-emails. HTML is also a
> > standard. Together with a standard MIME type name for HTML, that
> > makes HTML mails completely standardized.
>
> No. It makes HTML files as attachments standardized.
MIME doesn't have an 'attachment' concept. A MIME message is made up of
parts, none of which are 'main', 'primary' or 'attached'.
> >> Because it's a waste or bandwidth?
> >
> > A waste of bandwidth? A few kilobytes per person per day?
>
> Would you please think of the children^W dial-up users?
The difference is neglible for them. Even if a 33.6 kbit/s dial-up user
receives 50 mails a day, the time difference (for the whole day) will be
about 30 seconds, assuming that the HTML parts are 4 KB in average,
which is pretty exaggerated.
> > Demanding CR/LF instead of sole LF for telnet-like protocols
> > (including HTTP) must be a waste also.
>
> No. Actually I think the CR/LF interpretation is the correct one, and
> HTTP is supposed to be human-readable on pure terminals.
And Unix thinks, LF is the correct one. Who cares? CR/LF is a waste of
bandwidth.
> >> Because eMail isn't supposed to emit any formatting?
> >
> > Oh yeah, everything that was made up in the 70s and 80s was
> > ultimate. There is no reason for inventions. In fact, we don't
> > even need X11 or OpenGL. Back to phosphor terminals!
>
> Stupid. If you want a protocol for formatted documents, then either
> propose a standard extension to eMail or a completely new protocol.
That would be MIME.
> >> Because HTML is meant for hypertext, not formatted documents?
> >
> > Maybe HTML 1.0 was. Today, hypertext is one of many features of
> > HTML.
>
> Hypertext is the primary feature of HTML, even today.
Even then HTML also features direct formatting (through tags and
attributes, the 'wrong' way) and indirect formatting (through markup,
the 'right' way). And IMO there is nothing wrong with providing
hypertext capabilities to mail-readers. But that's just my opinion.
Regards,
Ertugrul.
--
http://ertes.de/