3 ms·

> If the client is interpreting the content and then displaying its interpretation to the user, then it's not plain text anymore, is it? Yes it is. > It's a f

> If the client is interpreting the content and then displaying its interpretation to the user, then it's not plain text anymore, is it? Yes it is. > It's a format Yes, plain text is a format. The best format. > in this case it's a poorly-specified, ad-hoc format and broken format[1] that is worse than simply having a reduced ad-hoc HTML format. Well sure, plain text sucks at being HTML. That's because it isn't HTML; it's plain text. Plain text is not "poorly-specified, ad-hoc and broken" as plain text; only as HTML. The solution is not to use it as HTML. > For example, what if the sender types in `You should go to http://ww.example.com http://ww.example.com, where "example" must be replaced with your company name`? Suddenly `www.example.com` has an unintended DDoS! Ah, so that doesn't happen if the sender types in the wrong thing in HTML...?

lelanthran 2y ago
>> For example, what if the sender types in `You should go to http://ww.example.com http://ww.example.com, where "example" must be replaced with your company name`? Suddenly `www.example.com` has an unintended DDoS! > Ah, so that doesn't happen if the sender types in the wrong thing in HTML...? I can't tell if you're being purposely contrarian or simply don't understand users. The problem: Things that shouldn't be links get turned into links. Your response: $SOME_OTHER_PROBLEM I mean, really? You can't tell the difference between someone making a typo when intending to write a link and someone making a typo that results in a link?
- CRConrad 2y ago
  So if you send that as text that isn't HTMLified by the recipient's client, they'll copy it as text and paste it into the adress line of the browser. The problem is still that the recipient goes to an adress the sender didn't intend (i.e. the recipient is stupid); has nothing to do with HTML vs text. Or, if you want, the problem is that the recipient's client software HTMLifies text. Stupid client software (and possibly stupid recipient, for using the stupid software). Still has nothing to do with HTML vs text per se. Yes, that is literally $SOME_OTHER_PROBLEM. I mean, really? You can't tell the difference between various formats and problems caused by something else entirely? (I get the feeling your supercilious "I mean, really?" was intended to slyly convey that I was the one being stupid here. IMO that backfired rather convincingly.)

lelanthran 2y ago

>> For example, what if the sender types in `You should go to http://ww.example.com http://ww.example.com, where "example" must be replaced with your company name`? Suddenly `www.example.com` has an unintended DDoS! > Ah, so that doesn't happen if the sender types in the wrong thing in HTML...? I can't tell if you're being purposely contrarian or simply don't understand users. The problem: Things that shouldn't be links get turned into links. Your response: $SOME_OTHER_PROBLEM I mean, really? You can't tell the difference between someone making a typo when intending to write a link and someone making a typo that results in a link?

CRConrad 2y ago
So if you send that as text that isn't HTMLified by the recipient's client, they'll copy it as text and paste it into the adress line of the browser. The problem is still that the recipient goes to an adress the sender didn't intend (i.e. the recipient is stupid); has nothing to do with HTML vs text. Or, if you want, the problem is that the recipient's client software HTMLifies text. Stupid client software (and possibly stupid recipient, for using the stupid software). Still has nothing to do with HTML vs text per se. Yes, that is literally $SOME_OTHER_PROBLEM. I mean, really? You can't tell the difference between various formats and problems caused by something else entirely? (I get the feeling your supercilious "I mean, really?" was intended to slyly convey that I was the one being stupid here. IMO that backfired rather convincingly.)