[Openib-windows] Plain text and HTML mail format

Wed Aug 17 15:03:16 PDT 2005

Hi Fab,

Bellow are answers and explanations to the points that you have raised. I do
agree that there are some point in what you are saying (for example the size
issue), but I still think that since the HTML is a super set of ASCII
anything that one can do in html, can be done using HTML (but not vice
versa). I also admit that at least in some places, I didn't under stand you,
and I wrote what my thoughts were.

Thanks
Tzachi

-----Original Message-----
From: Fab Tillier [mailto:ftillier at silverstorm.com] 
Sent: Friday, August 12, 2005 8:50 PM
To: 'Tzachi Dar'; openib-windows at openib.org
Subject: RE: [Openib-windows] Plain text and HTML mail format

Here is what happens when someone uses HTML format.  See the line along the
left of the quoted message?  It doesn't break when someone starts to write
something, so in effect it does nothing - it's just a nuisance.  Which is
why color is so important - it makes up for the inherently bad quoting style
provided by HTML email.  People usually give up and top post, which makes it
harder to follow a thread.

The fact that the line does not break is not a problem with html, it is a
problem with outlook. If you use other clients for example Thunderbird, you
will be happy to know that this problem is solved: the line does break.
Still, if you want to get the >>> signs Thunderbird can also do this, so I
guess that this is not a real issue. More than this, if you work with
Thunderbird you will see that the HTML formats allow you to understand who
is writing what, but still resize the lines. In some magic way the editor
still understands that this is a paragraph.

Color doesn't make text easier to read.
Fonts don't make text easier to read, either

Fonts and colors are tools that like any other tool can be used for better
or for worse. Not any document with color and fonts will look well, but most
of them will (if you think about it long enough).
Here are some examples of companies and organization that gave this a
thought and decided to use fonts and colors. Take a look, and I'm sure that
you will agree that things look better this way:
 <http://www.cnn.com/> www.cnn.com,  <http://www.intel.com/> www.intel.com,
<http://www.silverstorm.com/> http://www.silverstorm.com/ and there are
probably 50 million or more. I wander how many people are still using gopher
(you probably remember the good old gopher, that only used ASCII).

There's also a size issue - if you look at the message you sent, and compare
the size between the HTML format you sent and a plain text format, you will
see that the HTML is 10K while the plain text is 6K.  That's a considerable
difference.  You can try this yourself to verify this - make a copy of the
sent message, then open the copy, select <Edit><Edit Message>, then
<Format><Plain Text>.  Now save the message and compare the size to the
original.

I agree with this point, but do you really think that this is an issue? 
One more point to remember here is the old saying that one drawing is equal
to a thousands words. I'm adding here a small graph, that I frankly believe
that we all agree that writing it in plain text will be longer (in kbytes).
I also believe that understanding the text will take longer. 

When sending patches inline, it's easier if they aren't in some fancy font -
plain text lets code look like code.  It also lets the recipient save the
message and apply the patch without needing an attachment.
 Two issues are raised here: The first is this I don't really think that it
really maters if you save the message and apply it as a patch or you save
the attachment and apply it. I didn't count the clicks needed but it looks
the same to me.
The other issue and this is where I probably missed you all together is
about code looking like code. I have looked at the patches that you have
sent in plain text and all I saw was code in one font and one color (black).
This looked exactly like the text and to me it didn't look like code at all.
The reason that I'm saying that it doesn't look like code is probably
because I use source insight as my editor, and there code is being displayed
in colors and with fonts. So I went and looked around for a while, other
people are using Visual Slick, and this editor is using colors and fonts. I
continued my search, and went to some open source tools such as eclipse,
kdevelop and kscope, and surprise they were using colors and fonts. Next I
thought about the good old vi (there code will look like code).
Unfortunately, the new versions of vi (vim) are also using colors (but no
fonts). 
So finally I have asked a Linux guru to show me how code looks like (and we
are talking real code here - Linux kernel). His answer was immediate: go to
<http://lxr.linux.no/blurb.html> http://lxr.linux.no/blurb.html I went there
and boom: colors and fonts.
So can you please tell me how should code look like? (By the way if my
feeling was right, and you think that code should look with one font and one
color - well html can do exactly this).

So plain text:
- is easier to read (for English, which is the primary language on the
openib-windows list)
- is smaller to send and receive over the network
- is harder to make careless mistakes like embedding multi-megabyte bitmaps,
tables, graphs and whatnot
- lets code look like code
- lets messages be used as patches without attachments
- provides better quoting style for putting inline responses

 So do you still that all above is true? Or should I send some more examples
?

More comments below - if you can find them

-----Original Message-----
From: Tzachi Dar [mailto:tzachid at mellanox.co.il] 
Sent: Friday, August 12, 2005 8:53 AM
To: 'openib-windows at openib.org'
Subject: [Openib-windows] Plain text and HTML mail format

Hi everyone,

In the last week or so, someone has sent a mail saying that there is some
problem with "html mails" and the conclusion was that we should start using
"plain text".

I'm not saying that "html" is a perfect format, but most people do find it
useful. There are probably many other formats that might be used (for
example rtf). 

I believe that if we want to use a different format than html, this should
be fine, but the new format should support at least the following
capabilities;  

1)   Enable different fonts.
2)   Enable different colors.
The only indication here that I wrote something is the color, unless I
prefix my comment with something like [Fab says], but that prefix only
applies to the first line of the paragraph.
3)   Enable inserting of tables.
4)   Enable inserting of graphs.
5)   Enable "auto numbering"
Typing numbers isn't that hard, so this is really of minimal value.
6)   Allow more languages. I'm not saying that the format should support any
language in the world, but the minimum is to support any language that at
least 1,000,000,000 people speak and write (for example Chinese and Arabic).
Of course other people might suggest other bars here.
If I get an email in Arabic or Chinese, I won't be able to read it, so the
format won't matter.  Feel free to use HTML when sending me messages in
those languages.

7)   Allow writing in both directions (did I mention Arabic ?).
.esu yna fo eb t'now cibarA ni gnihtemos em gnidnes os, cibarA dear t'nac I
,niagA.
(Again, I can't read Arabic, so sending me something in Arabic won't be of
any use.)  Writing English right-to-left doesn't have any value.

If anyone else has more requirements than please answer this mail, and the
entire openib-windows can choose the new format. 

Comments please (Currently at all formats).

Thanks
Tzachi
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openfabrics.org/pipermail/ofw/attachments/20050818/fc34b09e/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 26039 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openfabrics.org/pipermail/ofw/attachments/20050818/fc34b09e/attachment.gif>