[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


From: Drew Adams
Date: Sat, 5 May 2012 10:36:00 -0700

>  > Although the comparison with HTML is probably not that fair,
> No, and I would think Drew in particular would avoid comparing a
> properly standardized vulgarity to a complete atrocity.  But them's
> the breaks.

I'm having trouble telling which, in your eyes, is the "properly standardized
vulgarity" and which is the "complete atrocity".  Does it matter?

In any case, I did not compare HTML markup with Org/Gnus/Emacs markup, however
you might characterize either of them.

What I did was to ask that all such markup be kept out of plain-text messages.

I do not _see_ HTML markup displayed as such in mail messages (instead it is
rendered), but that's because my email client, like _most_, takes care of that.

And that was my other point: Emacs mail clients are not the only mail clients,
or even the most commonly used mail clients.  And even Emacs mail clients
presumably do not display HTML markup in plain-text messages.  Most mail clients
most often DTRT with most HTML markup - they can tell the difference from plain

That's the comparison I made and the one that matters here: not the markup
itself but how it is handled by most email clients.  HTML markup is handled
relatively well by the world; Org/Gnus markup is not.

If most email clients in the wide world recognized Org/Gnus markup and performed
Emacs font-locking on it, then I would not be arguing the second point.  (I
would still argue that such markup does not belong in a message purporting to be
plain text.)

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]