You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@subversion.apache.org by Bob Archer <bo...@amsi.com> on 2009/10/30 20:02:17 UTC
Plain Text vs Html
Is it my imagination or are there alot of people sending HTML email to the list? According to the tigris guidelines:
"Please use ASCII or ISO-8859 text if possible. Don't post HTML mails, RichText mails, or other formats that might be opaque to text-only mailreaders. Regarding language: we don't have an English-only policy, but you will probably get the best results by posting in English - it is the language shared by the greatest number of list participants."
I notice in Outlook when I reply to an HTML message there is that ugly blue line across the left. Also, even though I have my internet email set to use Plain Text it appears that Outlook ignores that setting when I am replying to an email using the same format as the original email. Now that I have realized that is happening I will make an attempt to remember to be sure to switch the format of my reply to plain-text also.
I wonder if this issue is due to many people using Outlook which does default to the HTML format. What I have done in Outlook is go to Tools -> Options... then to the Mail Format tab. Press the "Internet format...". In the format I've selected "Convert to plain text format" and also set to automatically wrap text at 72 characters as recommended on the tigris.org mail list directions area.
I did some searching around to see if I could get some cleaner reply quoting for Outlook. I have located this, http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/outlook-quotefix/ . It looks pretty good but alas I am using Outlook 2007 which is doesn't support. Is anyone aware of any tools similar to this for Outlook 2007?
All that said, I hope that I am sending this in plain-text. If I'm not let me know... I hope to be a good maillist citizen. If it's not, please someone let me know and also can point to any resources to fix my settings.
(sorry this is a bit of the svn topic)
Thanks,
BOb
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=1065&dsMessageId=2413101
To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org].
Re: Plain Text vs Html
Posted by Ulrich Eckhardt <ec...@satorlaser.com>.
On Thursday 05 November 2009, Radomir Zoltowski wrote:
> The point he is making is that the article you mention is from 1998.
Who is "he"? If you mean the poster I replied to with a link to netmeister's,
that one could not have referred to this link without serious time
hackery. ;)
> Generally the guidelines are solving virtual problems which are invalid
> for more than a decade.
Did you bother reading the article? The points about conserving bandwidth or
client support are probably mostly moot today, but, and here you show that
you obviously neither understood my reply nor the article mentioned "You are
missing an important point, and that is communication efficiency." (quoting
myself here).
> Also, top posting is much more efficient than bottom posting in my opinion.
Well, if you had taken the time to intersperse your reply with the exact
statements you were referring to, you would have noticed that your reply
doesn't make sense, at least none that I can make out without guessing. Is
that the kind of efficiency you want?
That said, clarity beats any fixed schema. However, one schema makes clarity
almost unavoidable while the other (see this very mail from you) makes it
easy to not make things clear.
> Welcome to the past...
Yep, this discussion sounds familiar.
Uli
--
ML: http://subversion.tigris.org/mailing-list-guidelines.html
FAQ: http://subversion.tigris.org/faq.html
Docs: http://svnbook.red-bean.com/
Sator Laser GmbH, Fangdieckstraße 75a, 22547 Hamburg, Deutschland
Geschäftsführer: Thorsten Föcking, Amtsgericht Hamburg HR B62 932
**************************************************************************************
Sator Laser GmbH, Fangdieckstraße 75a, 22547 Hamburg, Deutschland
Geschäftsführer: Thorsten Föcking, Amtsgericht Hamburg HR B62 932
**************************************************************************************
Visit our website at <http://www.satorlaser.de/>
**************************************************************************************
Diese E-Mail einschließlich sämtlicher Anhänge ist nur für den Adressaten bestimmt und kann vertrauliche Informationen enthalten. Bitte benachrichtigen Sie den Absender umgehend, falls Sie nicht der beabsichtigte Empfänger sein sollten. Die E-Mail ist in diesem Fall zu löschen und darf weder gelesen, weitergeleitet, veröffentlicht oder anderweitig benutzt werden.
E-Mails können durch Dritte gelesen werden und Viren sowie nichtautorisierte Änderungen enthalten. Sator Laser GmbH ist für diese Folgen nicht verantwortlich.
**************************************************************************************
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=1065&dsMessageId=2415057
To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org].
Re: Plain Text vs Html
Posted by Radomir Zoltowski <ra...@s3group.com>.
The point he is making is that the article you mention is from 1998.
Generally the guidelines are solving virtual problems which are invalid
for more than a decade. Also, top posting is much more efficient than
bottom posting in my opinion.
Welcome to the past...
R.
> On Wednesday 04 November 2009, David Weintraub wrote:
>> When Usenet was king, you used text only, did bottom posting, removed
>> excess quotes, and kept your signature down to no more than 4 lines.
>>
>> Much of that was due to bandwidth and diskspace limitations. Plus,
>> most usenet news readers were command line driven.
>
> You are missing an important point, and that is communication efficiency.
> If
> you ask me if I like red or maybe rather green, and I answer yes, you
> don't
> know what I'm talking about. You might guess that the initial one (red) is
> affirmed with the yes, but that is just guessing. By stripping the
> relevant
> content and addressing each statement separately, you make very clear what
> you are referring to, so this guessing part is left out.
>
> This is btw common knowledge, see e.g.
> http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote2.html.
>
> Uli
>
> --
> ML: http://subversion.tigris.org/mailing-list-guidelines.html
> FAQ: http://subversion.tigris.org/faq.html
> Docs: http://svnbook.red-bean.com/
>
> Sator Laser GmbH, FangdieckstraÃe 75a, 22547 Hamburg, Deutschland
> Geschäftsführer: Thorsten Föcking, Amtsgericht Hamburg HR B62 932
>
> **************************************************************************************
> Sator Laser GmbH, FangdieckstraÃe 75a, 22547 Hamburg, Deutschland
> Geschäftsführer: Thorsten Föcking, Amtsgericht Hamburg HR B62 932
> **************************************************************************************
> Visit our website at <http://www.satorlaser.de/>
> **************************************************************************************
> Diese E-Mail einschlieÃlich sämtlicher Anhänge ist nur für den
> Adressaten bestimmt und kann vertrauliche Informationen enthalten. Bitte
> benachrichtigen Sie den Absender umgehend, falls Sie nicht der
> beabsichtigte Empfänger sein sollten. Die E-Mail ist in diesem Fall zu
> löschen und darf weder gelesen, weitergeleitet, veröffentlicht oder
> anderweitig benutzt werden.
> E-Mails können durch Dritte gelesen werden und Viren sowie
> nichtautorisierte Ãnderungen enthalten. Sator Laser GmbH ist für diese
> Folgen nicht verantwortlich.
> **************************************************************************************
>
> ------------------------------------------------------
> http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=1065&dsMessageId=2414627
>
> To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail:
> [users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org].
>
The information contained in this e-mail and in any attachments is confidential and is designated solely for the attention of the intended recipient(s). If you are not an intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, distribute or retain this e-mail or any part thereof. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete all copies of this e-mail from your computer system(s).
Please direct any additional queries to: communications@s3group.com.
Thank You.
Silicon and Software Systems Limited. Registered in Ireland no. 378073.
Registered Office: South County Business Park, Leopardstown, Dublin 18
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=1065&dsMessageId=2414728
To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org].
Re: Plain Text vs Html
Posted by Ulrich Eckhardt <ec...@satorlaser.com>.
On Wednesday 04 November 2009, David Weintraub wrote:
> When Usenet was king, you used text only, did bottom posting, removed
> excess quotes, and kept your signature down to no more than 4 lines.
>
> Much of that was due to bandwidth and diskspace limitations. Plus,
> most usenet news readers were command line driven.
You are missing an important point, and that is communication efficiency. If
you ask me if I like red or maybe rather green, and I answer yes, you don't
know what I'm talking about. You might guess that the initial one (red) is
affirmed with the yes, but that is just guessing. By stripping the relevant
content and addressing each statement separately, you make very clear what
you are referring to, so this guessing part is left out.
This is btw common knowledge, see e.g.
http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote2.html.
Uli
--
ML: http://subversion.tigris.org/mailing-list-guidelines.html
FAQ: http://subversion.tigris.org/faq.html
Docs: http://svnbook.red-bean.com/
Sator Laser GmbH, Fangdieckstraße 75a, 22547 Hamburg, Deutschland
Geschäftsführer: Thorsten Föcking, Amtsgericht Hamburg HR B62 932
**************************************************************************************
Sator Laser GmbH, Fangdieckstraße 75a, 22547 Hamburg, Deutschland
Geschäftsführer: Thorsten Föcking, Amtsgericht Hamburg HR B62 932
**************************************************************************************
Visit our website at <http://www.satorlaser.de/>
**************************************************************************************
Diese E-Mail einschließlich sämtlicher Anhänge ist nur für den Adressaten bestimmt und kann vertrauliche Informationen enthalten. Bitte benachrichtigen Sie den Absender umgehend, falls Sie nicht der beabsichtigte Empfänger sein sollten. Die E-Mail ist in diesem Fall zu löschen und darf weder gelesen, weitergeleitet, veröffentlicht oder anderweitig benutzt werden.
E-Mails können durch Dritte gelesen werden und Viren sowie nichtautorisierte Änderungen enthalten. Sator Laser GmbH ist für diese Folgen nicht verantwortlich.
**************************************************************************************
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=1065&dsMessageId=2414627
To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org].
Re: Plain Text vs Html
Posted by "CompLing Help (David Brodbeck)" <li...@u.washington.edu>.
On Nov 4, 2009, at 8:42 AM, David Weintraub wrote:
> * We no longer have bandwidth limitations. The need for trimming down
> your quotes simply don't matter. In fact, many email clients like
> Gmail will fold up quoted material, so you don't even have to look at
> it.
I'm still on some lists where people subscribe in digest mode. (Yeah,
I know, I can't stand digest mode either, but some people seem to like
it.) If you don't trim quotes, those people end up having to go
through pages and pages of the same text quoted over and over again.
--
CompLing Help (David Brodbeck)
linghelp@u.washington.edu
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=1065&dsMessageId=2415864
To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org].
Re: Plain Text vs Html
Posted by David Weintraub <qa...@gmail.com>.
On Nov 4, 2009, at 11:53 AM, Bob Archer <Bo...@amsi.com> wrote:
> Thanks for your informative post. So two items...
>
> 1. Are we saying the Html email is acceptable on this list? If so,
> can we get the tigris page modified?
I've have been posting non-text for a while because I use GMail, and
that's the default. To post text only, I have to select Reply All,
click on Text Only, and respond to a dialog box. Others post HTML, and
I also started to do the same.
Something needs to be changed. If this is a text only list, set the
list to strip out all formating. If this isn't text only, change the
directions.
> 2. I also prefer top-posting replies also.
I do what works best. Long posts (like this) I cut and paste. Others
I'll top, and others I'll bottom post.
--
David Weintraub
David@Weintraub.name
Sent from my iPhone while riding in my Ferrari. (Jealous?)
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=1065&dsMessageId=2414823
To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org].
Re: Plain Text vs Html
Posted by Holger Rauch <ho...@empic.de>.
Hi to everybody,
IMHO all posts should normally be inline (unless it's a general
statement like this one), and the unrelevant parts of the original
mail removed (another poster has mentioned "communication efficiency")
and having to read deeply nested/quoted mail conversations can become
awkward after a while.
So, the main point surely is not storage anymore, but rather making it
easy to spot the main points. The longer and deeply nested/quoted an
email conversation gets, the more difficult it gets.
Just include the relevant parts of a mail and make it easier for
everybody.
On Thu, 05 Nov 2009, Daniel Becroft wrote:
> [...]
> > Has a vote been take recently? I see "please don't top post" mailed a lot
> > here... but I wonder if that is because it is really preferred... or is that
> > they way it's always been done?
Well, if there hasn't... Here's my vote! :-)))
> [...]
Kind regards,
Holger
Re: Plain Text vs Html
Posted by Daniel Becroft <dj...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 2:53 AM, Bob Archer <bo...@amsi.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 7:59 AM, Giulio Troccoli
> > <Gi...@uk.linedata.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I personally don't reply (on this ML) to emails in HTML or
> > RichText. It takes two seconds to switch
> > > to text-only when writing an email and even Outlook does not
> > convert it back to HTML or RichText.
> > >
> > > We all know why it's not good to top-posting but... (continues at
> > the bottom)
> >
> > When Usenet was king, you used text only, did bottom posting,
> > removed
> > excess quotes, and kept your signature down to no more than 4
> > lines.
> >
> > Much of that was due to bandwidth and diskspace limitations. Plus,
> > most usenet news readers were command line driven.
> >
> > * Bottom posting allowed you to just quote the stuff you were
> > replying
> > to. This was necessary because no one really kept the whole
> > conversation and downloading the entire thread just so you could
> > see
> > what the poster was replying to could take a while.
> >
> > Since most people bottom posted, someone who top posted simply was
> > not
> > following convention. Plus, they usually didn't whittle down the
> > post
> > they were replying to which wasted bandwidth.
> >
> > * In the old days, HTML was discouraged because most people used
> > mailx, elm, or pine which could only handle text. HTML was hard to
> > read, or came as an attachment that had to be manually downloaded,
> > and
> > then have Mozilla fired up, so you could read your email.
> >
> > However, times have changed:
> >
> > * We no longer have bandwidth limitations. The need for trimming
> > down
> > your quotes simply don't matter. In fact, many email clients like
> > Gmail will fold up quoted material, so you don't even have to look
> > at
> > it.
> >
> > * Microsoft Exchange did top posting which was NOT standard back
> > then.
> > Plus, it gave us another reason to yell at Noobs who used
> > proprietary
> > systems. However, most email clients now do top posting, so top
> > posting isn't the exception any more, but the default.
> >
> > Top posting allows you to keep the entire email conversation which
> > makes it easy to see what's going on. With top posting, my reply is
> > right at the top of my message which makes it easy to see. And, if
> > you
> > want to see what I am talking about, you can review the entire
> > conversation below my reply.
> >
> > * Most email clients handle rich text and HTML without problems.
> > Plus,
> > disk storage and bandwidth are no longer as limiting as they once
> > were. My entire email space may take up a few hundred megabytes at
> > the
> > most. MP3s take up more room, and I've got 10,000 of those sitting
> > on
> > my disk. HTML and Rich Text formatted mail isn't taking up only a
> > tiny
> > fraction of my hard drive. If I run short of room, I don't even
> > bother
> > tossing out email messages.
> >
> > Is there still a need to insist upon "text only" posts if everyone
> > can
> > handle HTML and Rich Text?
> >
> > If text only is important, then the mailing list should remove
> > formatting from rich text and HTML posts and reformat them into
> > plain
> > text replies. Almost all mailing list software can handle that. I
> > do
> > it for several non-technical lists where people tend to be animated
> > GIF happy, or to make sure people don't post attachments.
> >
> > As for the top posting vs. bottom posting debate: I already belong
> > to
> > a fanatical religion which believes that driving to McDonalds on a
> > Saturday afternoon and ordering a cheese burger would make me
> > liable
> > for two distinct death penalties. I'm therefore exempt from having
> > to
> > hold another fanatical belief. Whether you top post or bottom post
> > doesn't bother me one bit as long as you don't wear wool with
> > linen.
> >
> > --
> > David Weintraub
>
> Thanks for your informative post. So two items...
>
> 1. Are we saying the Html email is acceptable on this list? If so, can we
> get the tigris page modified?
>
HTML emails, IMHO still suffer from not being readable in the same way
across all email clients. Plain text will.
> 2. I also prefer top-posting replies also. For the reasons you stated it is
> easier to see what the "reply" actually is, and I can refer to the original
> if needed. Outlook does it, Gmail does it... the two systems I use for
> email.
LOL - "Outlook does it" - not really a valid argument for one way or
another.
> That said, do most people here prefer bottom/inline replies? Or do most
> people prefer top-posted replies?
It's Horses for courses. It would depend on the context of what the reply
was, and what it was replying to. Inline replies allow the splitting out of
the original email, and replying to each individual point (e.g. this email,
for example). Also, inline replies are extremely useful when doing code
reviews via email (checkout > commit > email > review) - see the svn-dev
list for examples.
Top posting, to me, is a bit backwards. If you need to read a long
conversation from the quotes, it's scroll down to the last message, read
(probably involving more scrolling. Then, scroll up and read the reply
(which might involve scrolling down). Rinse and repeat. Bottom posting
allows the reader to start at the top, and continually scroll down to read
the entire conversation.
> Has a vote been take recently? I see "please don't top post" mailed a lot
> here... but I wonder if that is because it is really preferred... or is that
> they way it's always been done?
I see the "please don't top most" messages a fair bit (probably about 1 or 2
a week).
Regards,
Daniel B.
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=1065&dsMessageId=2414532
To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org].
Re: Plain Text vs Html
Posted by Les Mikesell <le...@gmail.com>.
Bolstridge, Andrew wrote:
>
>> If you are allowed to install additional software at work, I find it
>> easier to run a separate copy of thunderbird (that can connect to your
>> exchange server via imap if that's your only account) for mailling
> lists
>> than to jump back and forth between internet/corporate email styles in
>> Outlook.
>>
>
> The only option I found was to install DavMail (sf.net/projects/davmail)
> and use that to connect to exchange (it uses Outlook Web Access so
> technically its acceptable to the exchange admins - ie they don't know
> any different unless you tell them).
>
> You then set Thunderbird to connect to the davmail gateway (use POP3 in
> this instance, it's faster)
>
> Still, some people cannot even do that, so perhaps the mailing list
> should be configured to strip out html formatting instead.
If the message is multipart/mixed you can drop the html part without losing much
information but some mailers can post in html only.
I subscribe to several high-volume lists and just prefer not to have that
content mixed with my work account. If I couldn't run thunderbird, I'd probably
use web access to a free google or yahoo account for mail list access. Those
interfaces aren't great but you can coax them into working reasonably.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=1065&dsMessageId=2415101
To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org].
RE: Plain Text vs Html
Posted by "Bolstridge, Andrew" <an...@intergraph.com>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Les Mikesell [mailto:lesmikesell@gmail.com]
>
> If you are allowed to install additional software at work, I find it
> easier to run a separate copy of thunderbird (that can connect to your
> exchange server via imap if that's your only account) for mailling
lists
> than to jump back and forth between internet/corporate email styles in
> Outlook.
>
The only option I found was to install DavMail (sf.net/projects/davmail)
and use that to connect to exchange (it uses Outlook Web Access so
technically its acceptable to the exchange admins - ie they don't know
any different unless you tell them).
You then set Thunderbird to connect to the davmail gateway (use POP3 in
this instance, it's faster)
Still, some people cannot even do that, so perhaps the mailing list
should be configured to strip out html formatting instead.
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=1065&dsMessageId=2415050
To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org].
Re: Plain Text vs Html
Posted by Jan Hendrik <li...@gmail.com>.
Concerning Re: Plain Text vs Html
Ryan Schmidt wrote on 6 Nov 2009, 1:17, at least in part:
> Les Mikesell wrote:
>
> > And attachments/colors/fonts don't work well on lists due to the
> > wide variety of readers and archiving tools.
>
> Text colors, fonts, and in particular text sizes don't work well in
> any email setting, IMHO.
Glad you finally brought up the decisive point against HTML mail,
Les and Ryan.
It may have been technical reason in the first place old typewriters
came with a very limited variety of additionally not too different
fonts. Yet this conformity in type provided for easy and fast
reading through a great number of letters every day. Added that
the color always was black, with but little red in-between, and only
if really necessary or meaningful.
It's quite a nuisance that today not just privates, but also
corporations use all sorts of fancy fonts for their correspondence.
Imposing font size/color, background color on people when they
have to read it on a display, which under any circumstance is
harder for the eyes, raises this nuisance.
This even more important on a list like this. Supposedly almost all
readers are professionals, and supposedly almost all read/post on
the side, making it even more necessary to be able to do so in the
easiest, quickest, most comfortable manner. Which, of course,
means by those settings one is most comfortable with.
As for links Ryan mentions, a decent mail client like Pegasus Mail
has no troubles with them in plain text mode: they are displayed,
and they work just as they should. With the extra benefit that -
unlike HTML - one can see where they go to. It also has no
problem wrapping exceeding line length in both reading and quoting.
Leave the fancy stuff to your dearies - and the spammers.
JH
---------------------------------------
Freedom quote:
The greatest Glory of a free-born People,
is to transmit that Freedom to their Children.
-- William Harvard
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=1065&dsMessageId=2415025
To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org].
Re: Plain Text vs Html
Posted by Ryan Schmidt <su...@ryandesign.com>.
Les Mikesell wrote:
> And attachments/colors/fonts don't work well on lists due to the wide
> variety of readers and archiving tools.
Text colors, fonts, and in particular text sizes don't work well in
any email setting, IMHO. I personally have no problem if you send me
HTML mail, for the purpose of embedding links or for adding text
styles like bold or italics, for example, so long as you do not impose
your text color, font or text size preferences on me. I have my email
client configured to use a font, text color, and text size that are
comfortable for my eyes and my screen resolution. It is completely
inappropriate for people to send mail where the entire body of text is
configured to display text at "smaller than normal" size. But this is
exactly what some email client out there appears to do by default
(enclosing everything in a "font size=2" tag) because I've seen that
very often. I don't know which client it is, but I'm gonna guess
Outlook.
But as you say, archiving is also a problem. Either the archive strips
out the HTML and leaves a plain-text version, in which case you lose
any information you added with links or styling, or the archive stores
the HTML in a pretty unreadable fashion, like:
http://svn.haxx.se/users/archive-2009-08/0155.shtml
So for mailing lists, avoiding HTML seems to remain the best advice.
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=1065&dsMessageId=2414949
To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org].
Re: Plain Text vs Html
Posted by Les Mikesell <le...@gmail.com>.
Brown, Michael wrote:
> Not allowed to connect to the e-mail server with thrid-party tools, like imap.
> Not really jumping back and forth. The style can be set and left for all e-mails.
Setting it one way doesn't please everyone. Business associates are
going to expect top posted quick replies where they'll remember their
part of the conversation and the bottom part is just history in the
unlikely case someone wants to review it - and attachments, color, etc.,
are common and desirable. Mailing lists will have many readers coming
into the middle of a conversation who will want to follow the context of
questions/responses in a message from the top down with appropriate
quoting levels so you can start at the last response and understand a
solved problem without having to wade through all of the individual
messages - this is especially true for list archives, but also for
people who have a lot of list email and work backwards when reading it.
And attachments/colors/fonts don't work well on lists due to the wide
variety of readers and archiving tools.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=1065&dsMessageId=2414942
To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org].
RE: Plain Text vs Html
Posted by "Brown, Michael" <mi...@philips.com>.
Not allowed to connect to the e-mail server with thrid-party tools, like imap.
Not really jumping back and forth. The style can be set and left for all e-mails.
MB
--
You design it, I'll build it
e-mail: michael.l.brown@philips.com
desk: 608-288-6969
cell: 608-206-6843
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Les Mikesell [mailto:lesmikesell@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2009 4:32 PM
> To: Brown, Michael
> Cc: users@subversion.tigris.org
> Subject: Re: Plain Text vs Html
>
> Brown, Michael wrote:
> > My two cents
> > Since I read this e-mail at work (for obvious reasons :-), Philips
> uses Outlook and it does top posting by default. I've not found a way
> to get it to do the old e-mail response with the > characters. At home
> yes, since I use mutt to read my e-mail from my personal Solaris 10 x86
> server. This allows me to ssh into my home box from work and read my e-
> mail. Mutt understands mime separated plain text and html sections.
> Otherwise, I see the HTML code (mostly comes from spammers, but some
> companies send e-mail about orders I've placed as HTML only [dummies]).
> > So, for this e-mail list, I'm stuck with top posting.
>
> If you are allowed to install additional software at work, I find it
> easier to run a separate copy of thunderbird (that can connect to your
> exchange server via imap if that's your only account) for mailling lists
> than to jump back and forth between internet/corporate email styles in
> Outlook.
>
> --
> Les Mikesell
> lesmikesell@gmail.com
The information contained in this message may be confidential and legally protected under applicable law. The message is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, forwarding, dissemination, or reproduction of this message is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=1065&dsMessageId=2414940
To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org].
Re: Plain Text vs Html
Posted by Les Mikesell <le...@gmail.com>.
Brown, Michael wrote:
> My two cents
> Since I read this e-mail at work (for obvious reasons :-), Philips uses Outlook and it does top posting by default. I've not found a way to get it to do the old e-mail response with the > characters. At home yes, since I use mutt to read my e-mail from my personal Solaris 10 x86 server. This allows me to ssh into my home box from work and read my e-mail. Mutt understands mime separated plain text and html sections. Otherwise, I see the HTML code (mostly comes from spammers, but some companies send e-mail about orders I've placed as HTML only [dummies]).
> So, for this e-mail list, I'm stuck with top posting.
If you are allowed to install additional software at work, I find it
easier to run a separate copy of thunderbird (that can connect to your
exchange server via imap if that's your only account) for mailling lists
than to jump back and forth between internet/corporate email styles in
Outlook.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=1065&dsMessageId=2414939
To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org].
RE: Plain Text vs Html
Posted by Bob Archer <bo...@amsi.com>.
> > On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 7:59 AM, Giulio Troccoli
> > <Gi...@uk.linedata.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I personally don't reply (on this ML) to emails in HTML or
> > RichText. It takes two seconds to switch
> > > to text-only when writing an email and even Outlook does not
> > convert it back to HTML or RichText.
> > >
> > > We all know why it's not good to top-posting but... (continues
> at
> > the bottom)
> >
> > When Usenet was king, you used text only, did bottom posting,
> > removed
> > excess quotes, and kept your signature down to no more than 4
> > lines.
> >
> > Much of that was due to bandwidth and diskspace limitations.
> Plus,
> > most usenet news readers were command line driven.
> >
> > * Bottom posting allowed you to just quote the stuff you were
> > replying
> > to. This was necessary because no one really kept the whole
> > conversation and downloading the entire thread just so you could
> > see
> > what the poster was replying to could take a while.
> >
> > Since most people bottom posted, someone who top posted simply
> was
> > not
> > following convention. Plus, they usually didn't whittle down the
> > post
> > they were replying to which wasted bandwidth.
> >
> > * In the old days, HTML was discouraged because most people used
> > mailx, elm, or pine which could only handle text. HTML was hard
> to
> > read, or came as an attachment that had to be manually
> downloaded,
> > and
> > then have Mozilla fired up, so you could read your email.
> >
> > However, times have changed:
> >
> > * We no longer have bandwidth limitations. The need for trimming
> > down
> > your quotes simply don't matter. In fact, many email clients like
> > Gmail will fold up quoted material, so you don't even have to
> look
> > at
> > it.
> >
> > * Microsoft Exchange did top posting which was NOT standard back
> > then.
> > Plus, it gave us another reason to yell at Noobs who used
> > proprietary
> > systems. However, most email clients now do top posting, so top
> > posting isn't the exception any more, but the default.
> >
> > Top posting allows you to keep the entire email conversation
> which
> > makes it easy to see what's going on. With top posting, my reply
> is
> > right at the top of my message which makes it easy to see. And,
> if
> > you
> > want to see what I am talking about, you can review the entire
> > conversation below my reply.
> >
> > * Most email clients handle rich text and HTML without problems.
> > Plus,
> > disk storage and bandwidth are no longer as limiting as they once
> > were. My entire email space may take up a few hundred megabytes
> at
> > the
> > most. MP3s take up more room, and I've got 10,000 of those
> sitting
> > on
> > my disk. HTML and Rich Text formatted mail isn't taking up only a
> > tiny
> > fraction of my hard drive. If I run short of room, I don't even
> > bother
> > tossing out email messages.
> >
> > Is there still a need to insist upon "text only" posts if
> everyone
> > can
> > handle HTML and Rich Text?
> >
> > If text only is important, then the mailing list should remove
> > formatting from rich text and HTML posts and reformat them into
> > plain
> > text replies. Almost all mailing list software can handle that. I
> > do
> > it for several non-technical lists where people tend to be
> animated
> > GIF happy, or to make sure people don't post attachments.
> >
> > As for the top posting vs. bottom posting debate: I already
> belong
> > to
> > a fanatical religion which believes that driving to McDonalds on
> a
> > Saturday afternoon and ordering a cheese burger would make me
> > liable
> > for two distinct death penalties. I'm therefore exempt from
> having
> > to
> > hold another fanatical belief. Whether you top post or bottom
> post
> > doesn't bother me one bit as long as you don't wear wool with
> > linen.
> >
> > --
> > David Weintraub
>
> Thanks for your informative post. So two items...
>
> 1. Are we saying the Html email is acceptable on this list? If so,
> can we get the tigris page modified?
>
> 2. I also prefer top-posting replies also. For the reasons you
> stated it is easier to see what the "reply" actually is, and I can
> refer to the original if needed. Outlook does it, Gmail does it...
> the two systems I use for email. That said, do most people here
> prefer bottom/inline replies? Or do most people prefer top-posted
> replies? Has a vote been take recently? I see "please don't top
> post" mailed a lot here... but I wonder if that is because it is
> really preferred... or is that they way it's always been done?
>
> BOb
>
> (Not trying to start a religious war here with item 2, just
> curious.)
>
> My two cents
> Since I read this e-mail at work (for obvious reasons :-), Philips
> uses Outlook and it does top posting by default. I've not found a
> way to get it to do the old e-mail response with the > characters.
> At home yes, since I use mutt to read my e-mail from my personal
> Solaris 10 x86 server. This allows me to ssh into my home box from
> work and read my e-mail. Mutt understands mime separated plain
> text and html sections. Otherwise, I see the HTML code (mostly
> comes from spammers, but some companies send e-mail about orders
> I've placed as HTML only [dummies]).
> So, for this e-mail list, I'm stuck with top posting.
> MB
I use outlook and can bottom post. It's not hard to do. you can set up Outlook to pre-fix a reply with > character. As long as the original email is text it will work fine. If the email you are replying to is Html then the > character shows as a blue bar.
There is a way around this... before you reply to an Html email which you are reading it choose the "Other Actions" and set the format of the email to Text.. then save it. Now when you reply to it you will see your pre-fix character as text rather than that blue bar.
BOb
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=1065&dsMessageId=2414495
To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org].
RE: Plain Text vs Html
Posted by "Brown, Michael" <mi...@philips.com>.
My two cents
Since I read this e-mail at work (for obvious reasons :-), Philips uses Outlook and it does top posting by default. I've not found a way to get it to do the old e-mail response with the > characters. At home yes, since I use mutt to read my e-mail from my personal Solaris 10 x86 server. This allows me to ssh into my home box from work and read my e-mail. Mutt understands mime separated plain text and html sections. Otherwise, I see the HTML code (mostly comes from spammers, but some companies send e-mail about orders I've placed as HTML only [dummies]).
So, for this e-mail list, I'm stuck with top posting.
MB
--
You design it, I'll build it
e-mail: michael.l.brown@philips.com
desk: 608-288-6969
cell: 608-206-6843
-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Archer [mailto:bob.archer@amsi.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2009 10:53 AM
To: David Weintraub; Giulio Troccoli
Cc: users@subversion.tigris.org
Subject: RE: Plain Text vs Html
> On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 7:59 AM, Giulio Troccoli
> <Gi...@uk.linedata.com> wrote:
> >
> > I personally don't reply (on this ML) to emails in HTML or
> RichText. It takes two seconds to switch
> > to text-only when writing an email and even Outlook does not
> convert it back to HTML or RichText.
> >
> > We all know why it's not good to top-posting but... (continues at
> the bottom)
>
> When Usenet was king, you used text only, did bottom posting,
> removed
> excess quotes, and kept your signature down to no more than 4
> lines.
>
> Much of that was due to bandwidth and diskspace limitations. Plus,
> most usenet news readers were command line driven.
>
> * Bottom posting allowed you to just quote the stuff you were
> replying
> to. This was necessary because no one really kept the whole
> conversation and downloading the entire thread just so you could
> see
> what the poster was replying to could take a while.
>
> Since most people bottom posted, someone who top posted simply was
> not
> following convention. Plus, they usually didn't whittle down the
> post
> they were replying to which wasted bandwidth.
>
> * In the old days, HTML was discouraged because most people used
> mailx, elm, or pine which could only handle text. HTML was hard to
> read, or came as an attachment that had to be manually downloaded,
> and
> then have Mozilla fired up, so you could read your email.
>
> However, times have changed:
>
> * We no longer have bandwidth limitations. The need for trimming
> down
> your quotes simply don't matter. In fact, many email clients like
> Gmail will fold up quoted material, so you don't even have to look
> at
> it.
>
> * Microsoft Exchange did top posting which was NOT standard back
> then.
> Plus, it gave us another reason to yell at Noobs who used
> proprietary
> systems. However, most email clients now do top posting, so top
> posting isn't the exception any more, but the default.
>
> Top posting allows you to keep the entire email conversation which
> makes it easy to see what's going on. With top posting, my reply is
> right at the top of my message which makes it easy to see. And, if
> you
> want to see what I am talking about, you can review the entire
> conversation below my reply.
>
> * Most email clients handle rich text and HTML without problems.
> Plus,
> disk storage and bandwidth are no longer as limiting as they once
> were. My entire email space may take up a few hundred megabytes at
> the
> most. MP3s take up more room, and I've got 10,000 of those sitting
> on
> my disk. HTML and Rich Text formatted mail isn't taking up only a
> tiny
> fraction of my hard drive. If I run short of room, I don't even
> bother
> tossing out email messages.
>
> Is there still a need to insist upon "text only" posts if everyone
> can
> handle HTML and Rich Text?
>
> If text only is important, then the mailing list should remove
> formatting from rich text and HTML posts and reformat them into
> plain
> text replies. Almost all mailing list software can handle that. I
> do
> it for several non-technical lists where people tend to be animated
> GIF happy, or to make sure people don't post attachments.
>
> As for the top posting vs. bottom posting debate: I already belong
> to
> a fanatical religion which believes that driving to McDonalds on a
> Saturday afternoon and ordering a cheese burger would make me
> liable
> for two distinct death penalties. I'm therefore exempt from having
> to
> hold another fanatical belief. Whether you top post or bottom post
> doesn't bother me one bit as long as you don't wear wool with
> linen.
>
> --
> David Weintraub
Thanks for your informative post. So two items...
1. Are we saying the Html email is acceptable on this list? If so, can we get the tigris page modified?
2. I also prefer top-posting replies also. For the reasons you stated it is easier to see what the "reply" actually is, and I can refer to the original if needed. Outlook does it, Gmail does it... the two systems I use for email. That said, do most people here prefer bottom/inline replies? Or do most people prefer top-posted replies? Has a vote been take recently? I see "please don't top post" mailed a lot here... but I wonder if that is because it is really preferred... or is that they way it's always been done?
BOb
(Not trying to start a religious war here with item 2, just curious.)
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=1065&dsMessageId=2414455
To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org].
The information contained in this message may be confidential and legally protected under applicable law. The message is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, forwarding, dissemination, or reproduction of this message is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=1065&dsMessageId=2414467
To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org].
RE: Plain Text vs Html
Posted by Bob Archer <bo...@amsi.com>.
> On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 7:59 AM, Giulio Troccoli
> <Gi...@uk.linedata.com> wrote:
> >
> > I personally don't reply (on this ML) to emails in HTML or
> RichText. It takes two seconds to switch
> > to text-only when writing an email and even Outlook does not
> convert it back to HTML or RichText.
> >
> > We all know why it's not good to top-posting but... (continues at
> the bottom)
>
> When Usenet was king, you used text only, did bottom posting,
> removed
> excess quotes, and kept your signature down to no more than 4
> lines.
>
> Much of that was due to bandwidth and diskspace limitations. Plus,
> most usenet news readers were command line driven.
>
> * Bottom posting allowed you to just quote the stuff you were
> replying
> to. This was necessary because no one really kept the whole
> conversation and downloading the entire thread just so you could
> see
> what the poster was replying to could take a while.
>
> Since most people bottom posted, someone who top posted simply was
> not
> following convention. Plus, they usually didn't whittle down the
> post
> they were replying to which wasted bandwidth.
>
> * In the old days, HTML was discouraged because most people used
> mailx, elm, or pine which could only handle text. HTML was hard to
> read, or came as an attachment that had to be manually downloaded,
> and
> then have Mozilla fired up, so you could read your email.
>
> However, times have changed:
>
> * We no longer have bandwidth limitations. The need for trimming
> down
> your quotes simply don't matter. In fact, many email clients like
> Gmail will fold up quoted material, so you don't even have to look
> at
> it.
>
> * Microsoft Exchange did top posting which was NOT standard back
> then.
> Plus, it gave us another reason to yell at Noobs who used
> proprietary
> systems. However, most email clients now do top posting, so top
> posting isn't the exception any more, but the default.
>
> Top posting allows you to keep the entire email conversation which
> makes it easy to see what's going on. With top posting, my reply is
> right at the top of my message which makes it easy to see. And, if
> you
> want to see what I am talking about, you can review the entire
> conversation below my reply.
>
> * Most email clients handle rich text and HTML without problems.
> Plus,
> disk storage and bandwidth are no longer as limiting as they once
> were. My entire email space may take up a few hundred megabytes at
> the
> most. MP3s take up more room, and I've got 10,000 of those sitting
> on
> my disk. HTML and Rich Text formatted mail isn't taking up only a
> tiny
> fraction of my hard drive. If I run short of room, I don't even
> bother
> tossing out email messages.
>
> Is there still a need to insist upon "text only" posts if everyone
> can
> handle HTML and Rich Text?
>
> If text only is important, then the mailing list should remove
> formatting from rich text and HTML posts and reformat them into
> plain
> text replies. Almost all mailing list software can handle that. I
> do
> it for several non-technical lists where people tend to be animated
> GIF happy, or to make sure people don't post attachments.
>
> As for the top posting vs. bottom posting debate: I already belong
> to
> a fanatical religion which believes that driving to McDonalds on a
> Saturday afternoon and ordering a cheese burger would make me
> liable
> for two distinct death penalties. I'm therefore exempt from having
> to
> hold another fanatical belief. Whether you top post or bottom post
> doesn't bother me one bit as long as you don't wear wool with
> linen.
>
> --
> David Weintraub
Thanks for your informative post. So two items...
1. Are we saying the Html email is acceptable on this list? If so, can we get the tigris page modified?
2. I also prefer top-posting replies also. For the reasons you stated it is easier to see what the "reply" actually is, and I can refer to the original if needed. Outlook does it, Gmail does it... the two systems I use for email. That said, do most people here prefer bottom/inline replies? Or do most people prefer top-posted replies? Has a vote been take recently? I see "please don't top post" mailed a lot here... but I wonder if that is because it is really preferred... or is that they way it's always been done?
BOb
(Not trying to start a religious war here with item 2, just curious.)
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=1065&dsMessageId=2414455
To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org].
RE: Plain Text vs Html
Posted by "Robert P. J. Day" <rp...@crashcourse.ca>.
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009, Bolstridge, Andrew wrote:
> I'm going to top-post this time, just for fun!
for the love of mutt, please don't resurrect this idiocy. there is,
in fact, an appropriate place for top posting: somewhere else.
rday
--
========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA
Linux Consulting, Training and Kernel Pedantry.
Web page: http://crashcourse.ca
Twitter: http://twitter.com/rpjday
========================================================================
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=1065&dsMessageId=2414707
To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org].
RE: Plain Text vs Html
Posted by "Bolstridge, Andrew" <an...@intergraph.com>.
I'm going to top-post this time, just for fun!
The debate about top v bottom isn't really important even today. There
is one problem with bottom posting that I hate - that people tend to
just type their reply at the bottom, leaving the entire conversation
above it. Meaning I have to scroll down (sometimes pages) to get to the
useful bit. Back in the day, people snipped the irrelevant parts and
replied immediately below the text they were replying to. Some people
still do this on the ML, and may I thank them now for the trouble they
take doing it.
The only issue I have with top v bottom then is mixing the two styles.
If the ML doesn't state one, then whoever replies first gets to choose
whether the conversation continues top-posted, or bottom. Anyone
top-posting a reply to a conversation that has stretched downwards (and
vice versa) needs to be slapped.
Outlook is a big issue for this though, as it's really awkward to reply
to HTML mails using the bottom-post method, as a result lots of people
do the 'Microsoft way of least resistance' and just top post. Outlook is
the biggest problem to all the ML woes it seems - HTML by default, no
easy way to change to get > marks on reply, and top-post by default.
So I think we should change the ML rules to allow top-posts and HTML,
discourage bottom-posts appended to the bottom of a unedited reply,
encourage consistency and clear formatting, and allow posting etiquette
to evolve over time.
Andy
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Weintraub [mailto:qazwart@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2009 4:43 PM
> To: Giulio Troccoli
> Cc: Bob Archer; users@subversion.tigris.org
> Subject: Re: Plain Text vs Html
>
> On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 7:59 AM, Giulio Troccoli
> <Gi...@uk.linedata.com> wrote:
> >
> > I personally don't reply (on this ML) to emails in HTML or RichText.
It
> takes two seconds to switch
> > to text-only when writing an email and even Outlook does not convert
it back
> to HTML or RichText.
> >
> > We all know why it's not good to top-posting but... (continues at
the
> bottom)
>
> When Usenet was king, you used text only, did bottom posting, removed
> excess quotes, and kept your signature down to no more than 4 lines.
>
> Much of that was due to bandwidth and diskspace limitations. Plus,
> most usenet news readers were command line driven.
>
> * Bottom posting allowed you to just quote the stuff you were replying
> to. This was necessary because no one really kept the whole
> conversation and downloading the entire thread just so you could see
> what the poster was replying to could take a while.
>
> Since most people bottom posted, someone who top posted simply was not
> following convention. Plus, they usually didn't whittle down the post
> they were replying to which wasted bandwidth.
>
> * In the old days, HTML was discouraged because most people used
> mailx, elm, or pine which could only handle text. HTML was hard to
> read, or came as an attachment that had to be manually downloaded, and
> then have Mozilla fired up, so you could read your email.
>
> However, times have changed:
>
> * We no longer have bandwidth limitations. The need for trimming down
> your quotes simply don't matter. In fact, many email clients like
> Gmail will fold up quoted material, so you don't even have to look at
> it.
>
> * Microsoft Exchange did top posting which was NOT standard back then.
> Plus, it gave us another reason to yell at Noobs who used proprietary
> systems. However, most email clients now do top posting, so top
> posting isn't the exception any more, but the default.
>
> Top posting allows you to keep the entire email conversation which
> makes it easy to see what's going on. With top posting, my reply is
> right at the top of my message which makes it easy to see. And, if you
> want to see what I am talking about, you can review the entire
> conversation below my reply.
>
> * Most email clients handle rich text and HTML without problems. Plus,
> disk storage and bandwidth are no longer as limiting as they once
> were. My entire email space may take up a few hundred megabytes at the
> most. MP3s take up more room, and I've got 10,000 of those sitting on
> my disk. HTML and Rich Text formatted mail isn't taking up only a tiny
> fraction of my hard drive. If I run short of room, I don't even bother
> tossing out email messages.
>
> Is there still a need to insist upon "text only" posts if everyone can
> handle HTML and Rich Text?
>
> If text only is important, then the mailing list should remove
> formatting from rich text and HTML posts and reformat them into plain
> text replies. Almost all mailing list software can handle that. I do
> it for several non-technical lists where people tend to be animated
> GIF happy, or to make sure people don't post attachments.
>
> As for the top posting vs. bottom posting debate: I already belong to
> a fanatical religion which believes that driving to McDonalds on a
> Saturday afternoon and ordering a cheese burger would make me liable
> for two distinct death penalties. I'm therefore exempt from having to
> hold another fanatical belief. Whether you top post or bottom post
> doesn't bother me one bit as long as you don't wear wool with linen.
>
> --
> David Weintraub
> qazwart@gmail.com
>
> ------------------------------------------------------
>
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=1065&dsMessageI
d=2414
> 452
>
> To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-
> unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org].
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=1065&dsMessageId=2414704
To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org].
Re: Plain Text vs Html
Posted by Holger Rauch <ho...@empic.de>.
Hi David,
On Wed, 04 Nov 2009, David Weintraub wrote:
> [...]
> * Most email clients handle rich text and HTML without problems.
> [...]
>
> Is there still a need to insist upon "text only" posts if everyone can
> handle HTML and Rich Text?
Yes, there's is. Have you heard of Mutt, Pine, Alpine, etc.? I too am just
too lazy to always open links, lynx, etc. from my terminal window in order
to see the contents of some HTML only mail in my terminal window
(xterm, aterm, etc.).
Greetings,
Holger
Re: Plain Text vs Html
Posted by David Weintraub <qa...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 7:59 AM, Giulio Troccoli
<Gi...@uk.linedata.com> wrote:
>
> I personally don't reply (on this ML) to emails in HTML or RichText. It takes two seconds to switch
> to text-only when writing an email and even Outlook does not convert it back to HTML or RichText.
>
> We all know why it's not good to top-posting but... (continues at the bottom)
When Usenet was king, you used text only, did bottom posting, removed
excess quotes, and kept your signature down to no more than 4 lines.
Much of that was due to bandwidth and diskspace limitations. Plus,
most usenet news readers were command line driven.
* Bottom posting allowed you to just quote the stuff you were replying
to. This was necessary because no one really kept the whole
conversation and downloading the entire thread just so you could see
what the poster was replying to could take a while.
Since most people bottom posted, someone who top posted simply was not
following convention. Plus, they usually didn't whittle down the post
they were replying to which wasted bandwidth.
* In the old days, HTML was discouraged because most people used
mailx, elm, or pine which could only handle text. HTML was hard to
read, or came as an attachment that had to be manually downloaded, and
then have Mozilla fired up, so you could read your email.
However, times have changed:
* We no longer have bandwidth limitations. The need for trimming down
your quotes simply don't matter. In fact, many email clients like
Gmail will fold up quoted material, so you don't even have to look at
it.
* Microsoft Exchange did top posting which was NOT standard back then.
Plus, it gave us another reason to yell at Noobs who used proprietary
systems. However, most email clients now do top posting, so top
posting isn't the exception any more, but the default.
Top posting allows you to keep the entire email conversation which
makes it easy to see what's going on. With top posting, my reply is
right at the top of my message which makes it easy to see. And, if you
want to see what I am talking about, you can review the entire
conversation below my reply.
* Most email clients handle rich text and HTML without problems. Plus,
disk storage and bandwidth are no longer as limiting as they once
were. My entire email space may take up a few hundred megabytes at the
most. MP3s take up more room, and I've got 10,000 of those sitting on
my disk. HTML and Rich Text formatted mail isn't taking up only a tiny
fraction of my hard drive. If I run short of room, I don't even bother
tossing out email messages.
Is there still a need to insist upon "text only" posts if everyone can
handle HTML and Rich Text?
If text only is important, then the mailing list should remove
formatting from rich text and HTML posts and reformat them into plain
text replies. Almost all mailing list software can handle that. I do
it for several non-technical lists where people tend to be animated
GIF happy, or to make sure people don't post attachments.
As for the top posting vs. bottom posting debate: I already belong to
a fanatical religion which believes that driving to McDonalds on a
Saturday afternoon and ordering a cheese burger would make me liable
for two distinct death penalties. I'm therefore exempt from having to
hold another fanatical belief. Whether you top post or bottom post
doesn't bother me one bit as long as you don't wear wool with linen.
--
David Weintraub
qazwart@gmail.com
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=1065&dsMessageId=2414452
To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org].
RE: Plain Text vs Html
Posted by Giulio Troccoli <gi...@uk.linedata.com>.
>
Linedata Services (UK) Ltd
Registered Office: Bishopsgate Court, 4-12 Norton Folgate, London, E1 6DB
Registered in England and Wales No 3027851 VAT Reg No 778499447
-----Original Message-----
> From: Bob Archer [mailto:Bob.Archer@amsi.com]
> Sent: 05 November 2009 15:17
> To: Giulio Troccoli; users@subversion.tigris.org
> Subject: RE: Plain Text vs Html
>
> > > On Wednesday 04 November 2009, Giulio Troccoli wrote:
> > > > I personally don't reply (on this ML) to emails in HTML or
> > RichText.
> > >
> > > Ahem, but you send HTML? Or are you referring to mails
> provided in
> > > HTML exclusively? I ignore those, too, as I do with those
> stealing
> > > threads or persistently ignoring the ML guidelines.
> > >
> >
> > I do send HTML emails, but not to this ML. I might have done in the
> > past, when I started using Subversion and reading this ML, but not
> > anymore.
> >
> > At work, for example, where I know we all use Outlook, if I need to
> > send a screenshot it's easier to send an HTML email. But I was
> > referring to this ML only, not as a general rule of life.
>
> I think his point is that the first message you sent to this
> thread stating that you don't send Html messages to this list
> was in fact an Html message.
>
Yes, of course, my bad. But I did it to prove the point. I should have been more clear on that though.
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=1065&dsMessageId=2414748
To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org].
RE: Plain Text vs Html
Posted by Bob Archer <bo...@amsi.com>.
> > On Wednesday 04 November 2009, Giulio Troccoli wrote:
> > > I personally don't reply (on this ML) to emails in HTML or
> RichText.
> >
> > Ahem, but you send HTML? Or are you referring to mails
> > provided in HTML exclusively? I ignore those, too, as I do
> > with those stealing threads or persistently ignoring the ML
> > guidelines.
> >
>
> I do send HTML emails, but not to this ML. I might have done in the
> past, when I started using Subversion and reading this ML, but not
> anymore.
>
> At work, for example, where I know we all use Outlook, if I need to
> send a screenshot it's easier to send an HTML email. But I was
> referring to this ML only, not as a general rule of life.
I think his point is that the first message you sent to this thread stating that you don't send Html messages to this list was in fact an Html message.
BOb
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=1065&dsMessageId=2414740
To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org].
RE: Plain Text vs Html
Posted by Giulio Troccoli <gi...@uk.linedata.com>.
>
Linedata Services (UK) Ltd
Registered Office: Bishopsgate Court, 4-12 Norton Folgate, London, E1 6DB
Registered in England and Wales No 3027851 VAT Reg No 778499447
-----Original Message-----
> From: Ulrich Eckhardt [mailto:eckhardt@satorlaser.com]
> Sent: 05 November 2009 07:22
> To: users@subversion.tigris.org
> Subject: Re: Plain Text vs Html
>
> On Wednesday 04 November 2009, Giulio Troccoli wrote:
> > I personally don't reply (on this ML) to emails in HTML or RichText.
>
> Ahem, but you send HTML? Or are you referring to mails
> provided in HTML exclusively? I ignore those, too, as I do
> with those stealing threads or persistently ignoring the ML
> guidelines.
>
I do send HTML emails, but not to this ML. I might have done in the past, when I started using Subversion and reading this ML, but not anymore.
At work, for example, where I know we all use Outlook, if I need to send a screenshot it's easier to send an HTML email. But I was referring to this ML only, not as a general rule of life.
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=1065&dsMessageId=2414643
To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org].
Re: Plain Text vs Html
Posted by Ulrich Eckhardt <ec...@satorlaser.com>.
On Wednesday 04 November 2009, Giulio Troccoli wrote:
> I personally don't reply (on this ML) to emails in HTML or RichText.
Ahem, but you send HTML? Or are you referring to mails provided in HTML
exclusively? I ignore those, too, as I do with those stealing threads or
persistently ignoring the ML guidelines.
Uli
--
ML: http://subversion.tigris.org/mailing-list-guidelines.html
FAQ: http://subversion.tigris.org/faq.html
Docs: http://svnbook.red-bean.com/
Sator Laser GmbH, Fangdieckstraße 75a, 22547 Hamburg, Deutschland
Geschäftsführer: Thorsten Föcking, Amtsgericht Hamburg HR B62 932
**************************************************************************************
Sator Laser GmbH, Fangdieckstraße 75a, 22547 Hamburg, Deutschland
Geschäftsführer: Thorsten Föcking, Amtsgericht Hamburg HR B62 932
**************************************************************************************
Visit our website at <http://www.satorlaser.de/>
**************************************************************************************
Diese E-Mail einschließlich sämtlicher Anhänge ist nur für den Adressaten bestimmt und kann vertrauliche Informationen enthalten. Bitte benachrichtigen Sie den Absender umgehend, falls Sie nicht der beabsichtigte Empfänger sein sollten. Die E-Mail ist in diesem Fall zu löschen und darf weder gelesen, weitergeleitet, veröffentlicht oder anderweitig benutzt werden.
E-Mails können durch Dritte gelesen werden und Viren sowie nichtautorisierte Änderungen enthalten. Sator Laser GmbH ist für diese Folgen nicht verantwortlich.
**************************************************************************************
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=1065&dsMessageId=2414623
To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org].
RE: Plain Text vs Html
Posted by Giulio Troccoli <gi...@uk.linedata.com>.
>
Linedata Services (UK) Ltd
Registered Office: Bishopsgate Court, 4-12 Norton Folgate, London, E1 6DB
Registered in England and Wales No 3027851 VAT Reg No 778499447
-----Original Message-----
> From: Tyler Roscoe [mailto:tyler@cryptio.net]
> Sent: 04 November 2009 14:41
> To: Giulio Troccoli
> Cc: 'David Weintraub'; 'Bob Archer'; users@subversion.tigris.org
> Subject: Re: Plain Text vs Html
>
> On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 12:59:23PM +0000, Giulio Troccoli wrote:
> > I personally don't reply (on this ML) to emails in HTML or
> RichText. It takes two seconds to switch to text-only when
> writing an email and even Outlook does not convert it back to
> HTML or RichText.
>
> What about emails that don't wrap their lines at ~72
> characters? Do you reply to those?
>
> tyler
I think that's a different issue.
AFAIK you can set your email reader to wrap lines when displaying text. I use Outlook, Evolution and Thunderbird and I don't scroll right to read the end of a long line.
On the other hand, asking a reader to treat an HTML email as text is, IMO, wrong as it may lead to a lost of content. It may not be in this ML, but I think it is a fair general assumption.
Giulio
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=1065&dsMessageId=2414443
To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org].
Re: Plain Text vs Html
Posted by Tyler Roscoe <ty...@cryptio.net>.
On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 12:59:23PM +0000, Giulio Troccoli wrote:
> I personally don't reply (on this ML) to emails in HTML or RichText. It takes two seconds to switch to text-only when writing an email and even Outlook does not convert it back to HTML or RichText.
What about emails that don't wrap their lines at ~72 characters? Do you
reply to those?
tyler
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=1065&dsMessageId=2414424
To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org].
RE: Plain Text vs Html
Posted by Giulio Troccoli <gi...@uk.linedata.com>.
I personally don't reply (on this ML) to emails in HTML or RichText. It takes two seconds to switch to text-only when writing an email and even Outlook does not convert it back to HTML or RichText.
We all know why it's not good to top-posting but... (continues at the bottom)
Linedata Services (UK) Ltd
Registered Office: Bishopsgate Court, 4-12 Norton Folgate, London, E1 6DB
Registered in England and Wales No 3027851 VAT Reg No 778499447
________________________________
From: David Weintraub [mailto:qazwart@gmail.com]
Sent: 01 November 2009 15:52
To: Bob Archer
Cc: users@subversion.tigris.org
Subject: Re: Plain Text vs Html
It isn't just Outlook. It's all the email programs now. Most default to HTML and RichText.
However most email programs can read RichText and HTML without problems. When these guidelines were originally written, that was not the case.
In fact, I didn't realize that many mailing list still state the text only rule. It's sort of like the old rule that you should limit email signatures to four lines because it takes too much time for people with modem connections to download all those lines. Or, that all the really cool Internet email addresses are all .net domains.
So, is text only still important on this list: If so, the list server should be setup to strip all formatting and make everything text only. If not, why not change the rules?
And now that I think about it... Isn't ASCII no longer the "default" now that the world is moving to UTF-8? (Yes, I know UTF-8 is setup, so ASCII is a subset of it).
Note: This email is best viewed in Internet Explorer 6!
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 3:02 PM, Bob Archer <bo...@amsi.com>> wrote:
Is it my imagination or are there alot of people sending HTML email to the list? According to the tigris guidelines:
"Please use ASCII or ISO-8859 text if possible. Don't post HTML mails, RichText mails, or other formats that might be opaque to text-only mailreaders. Regarding language: we don't have an English-only policy, but you will probably get the best results by posting in English - it is the language shared by the greatest number of list participants."
--
David Weintraub
qazwart@gmail.com<ma...@gmail.com>
You cannot avoid the horrible blue line on the left when reply at the bottom.
But that's me, and the list probably doesn't suffer from the lack of my advice :-)
Giulio
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=1065&dsMessageId=2414399
To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org].
Re: Plain Text vs Html
Posted by David Weintraub <qa...@gmail.com>.
It isn't just Outlook. It's all the email programs now. Most default to HTML
and RichText.
However most email programs can read RichText and HTML without problems.
When these guidelines were originally written, that was not the case.
In fact, I didn't realize that many mailing list still state the text only
rule. It's sort of like the old rule that you should limit email signatures
to four lines because it takes too much time for people with modem
connections to download all those lines. Or, that all the really cool
Internet email addresses are all .net domains.
So, is text only still important on this list: If so, the list server should
be setup to strip all formatting and make everything text only. If not, why
not change the rules?
And now that I think about it... Isn't ASCII no longer the "default" now
that the world is moving to UTF-8? (Yes, I know UTF-8 is setup, so ASCII is
a subset of it).
Note: This email is best viewed in Internet Explorer 6!
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 3:02 PM, Bob Archer <bo...@amsi.com> wrote:
> Is it my imagination or are there alot of people sending HTML email to
> the list? According to the tigris guidelines:
>
> "Please use ASCII or ISO-8859 text if possible. Don't post HTML mails,
> RichText mails, or other formats that might be opaque to text-only
> mailreaders. Regarding language: we don't have an English-only policy, but
> you will probably get the best results by posting in English — it is the
> language shared by the greatest number of list participants."
>
--
David Weintraub
qazwart@gmail.com
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=1065&dsMessageId=2413457
To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org].
RE: Plain Text vs Html
Posted by Bob Archer <bo...@amsi.com>.
> Is it my imagination or are there alot of people sending HTML email
> to the list? According to the tigris guidelines:
>
> "Please use ASCII or ISO-8859 text if possible. Don't post HTML
> mails, RichText mails, or other formats that might be opaque to
> text-only mailreaders. Regarding language: we don't have an
> English-only policy, but you will probably get the best results by
> posting in English - it is the language shared by the greatest
> number of list participants."
>
> I notice in Outlook when I reply to an HTML message there is that
> ugly blue line across the left. Also, even though I have my
> internet email set to use Plain Text it appears that Outlook
> ignores that setting when I am replying to an email using the same
> format as the original email. Now that I have realized that is
> happening I will make an attempt to remember to be sure to switch
> the format of my reply to plain-text also.
>
> I wonder if this issue is due to many people using Outlook which
> does default to the HTML format. What I have done in Outlook is go
> to Tools -> Options... then to the Mail Format tab. Press the
> "Internet format...". In the format I've selected "Convert to plain
> text format" and also set to automatically wrap text at 72
> characters as recommended on the tigris.org mail list directions
> area.
>
> I did some searching around to see if I could get some cleaner
> reply quoting for Outlook. I have located this,
> http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/outlook-quotefix/ . It looks
> pretty good but alas I am using Outlook 2007 which is doesn't
> support. Is anyone aware of any tools similar to this for Outlook
> 2007?
>
> All that said, I hope that I am sending this in plain-text. If I'm
> not let me know... I hope to be a good maillist citizen. If it's
> not, please someone let me know and also can point to any resources
> to fix my settings.
>
> (sorry this is a bit of the svn topic)
>
> Thanks,
> BOb
Apparently I can't take my own advice. That email went to the list as HTML. Damn you Outlook. I guess that internet format was not working as I expected it was. I explicitly set this one to Plain Text. Yes, I am talking to myself.
BOb
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=1065&dsMessageId=2413103
To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org].