3 ms·
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enriched_text https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enriched_text Ironically references an article called "Why HTML is Inappropriate fo
by diggan 3y ago
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enriched_text https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enriched_text
Ironically references an article called "Why HTML is Inappropriate for E-Mail" (http://www.avernus.com/~gadams/essays/20020418-html-mail.html http://www.avernus.com/~gadams/essays/20020418-html-mail.htm...) posted way back in 2002 apparently.
We're just walking around in circles after all...
- layer8 3y agoThis goes back to 1998 at the very least: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASCII_ribbon_campaign https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASCII_ribbon_campaign It was clear from the start that using HTML in email was a bad idea.
- zokier 3y agoThis sort of dogmatic rejection of HTML ended up being the bigger problem. If instead futilely fighting against HTML email the community would have just embraced the idea, we could have a sensible spec for email (instead of just ad-hoc whatever Outlook does) and email could have had a chance to prevent its fading relevancy. But no, we had to fight the great evil of rich text which left vendors, MS in the forefront, to their own means to fulfill the strong and justified user demand, with predictable outcome.
- layer8 3y agoRFC 1896 defined a sensible alternative in 1996. I agree that it should have received more support, although at least a range of Unix MUAs and Apple Mail did and do support it.