Re: format=flowed : why not use HTML?

[Laurence Lundblade <lgl@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 11:20 PM -0700 8/20/98, Dave Crocker wrote:
>Well, I've been watching the exchange.
>
>Let me see if I understand the arguments:
>
>
>1.  text/html (or other html use)
>
>For:
>It is supported in some user agents already.  If has more than enough power
>for the paragraph wrapping.
>
>Against:
>It is supported in ONLY SOME user agents already.  It is very ugly when
>seen with user agents that don't support html.

I would add that it is incompatible with plain text in other situations
such as grepping your spool file and automatic processing by scripts.

For example one might run a mailing list that forces all HTML postings to
plain text or maybe just plain rejects them. I would like to see the format
we settle on be allowed in such a situation.



>2.  text/paragraph
>
>For:
>simple.  sufficient.  no extra (formatting) data in text.
>
>Against:
>New text/ subtype gets mishandled when unknown to UA.  (sigh.)
>
>
>3.  text/plain format=flowed
>
>For:
>simple.  sufficient.  no extra (formatting) data in text.  does not
>misbehave with UAs that don't recognize the parameter.
>
>Against:
>yet-another mechanism, when text/html is probably going to take over
>(eventually).

I don't want to make a big argument about it because I think the argument
for this option stands without it, but my thought would be that text/html
will never completely take over. Plain text is just lower cost and simpler
and easier in so many situations.

LL