html email

[mwoehlke]

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 
> a standard?

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" :-)).

-- 
Matthew
We are Microsoft. You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile. --Badtech