Re: HTML document "attachment" icon

[Toralf Lund <toralf kscanners com>]

On 2001.09.06 10:46 M . Thielker wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 2001.09.06 10:04 Toralf Lund wrote:
> > Also, perhaps you want to add the HTML icon when the message is
> > "multipart/alternative" and one of the parts is "text/html"? Or maybe
> not,
> > it might be that you want it only when no plain text version is
> available.
> 
> I have pretty strong opinions on that one - I see the HTML icon as a
> warning. I don't want HTML mail and if someone starts writing email in
> HTML,
> I usually trash it unread and replay to them to re-send this and future
> emails using text-only format.
Well, it's definitely a matter of opinion. I think some people would want a
warning not every time a message contains HTML, but only when there is no
alternative to viewing it, i.e. when no plaintext representation of
the content exists.

Apart from that, I don't quite agree that HTML is so bad. As I said
earlier, it seems to me that it's often an alternative to something far
worse, like MS Word documents. Also, I don't think HTML is really about
having 17 colours and 9 fonts (like someone else on the list expressed it).

As far as I understand, the intentions behind it is indeed to put focus 
on the content and provide a clear presentation. I guess what I'm saying
is that you shouldn't blame HTML for all the bad HTML documents people
write. 
--
- Toralf