Return-Path: izzy@nugget.scr.atm.com Received: from maleman.mcom.com (maleman.mcom.com [198.93.92.3]) by urchin.netscape.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) with ESMTP id JAA03193 for ; Mon, 3 Jun 1996 09:48:13 -0700 From: izzy@nugget.scr.atm.com Received: from ns.netscape.com (ns.netscape.com.mcom.com [198.95.251.10]) by maleman.mcom.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id JAA25021 for ; Mon, 3 Jun 1996 09:47:05 -0700 Received: from nugget.scr.atm.com ([206.100.186.2]) by ns.netscape.com (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id JAA16682 for ; Mon, 3 Jun 1996 09:47:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailman.scr.atm.com (mailman.scr.atm.com [206.100.186.54]) by nugget.scr.atm.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) with ESMTP id JAA29136 for ; Mon, 3 Jun 1996 09:51:56 -0700 To: jwz@netscape.com Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1996 09:42:32 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <19960603164232.izzy@scr.atm.com> References: <199605261926.AA283048804@merle.acns.nwu.edu> <19960527225319.izzy@scr.atm.com> <19960528160415.izzy@scr.atm.com> <19960530190556.izzy@scr.atm.com> In-Reply-To: <31AEE9BD.59E2@netscape.com> Subject: RE[4]: your generated HTML Organization: Netscape Communications Corporation, Mozilla Division X-Mailer: Emissary V2.00, by Attachmate Corp. Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="=_03tW34g.bO1996u.N16d000A.r06Y.42:0047e7"; type="text/html"; start-info="X-twg-cidlinking-V1.2" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 6555 --=_03tW34g.bO1996u.N16d000A.r06Y.42:0047e7 Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE[4]: your generated HTML
>> >2: your fixed-width text is *larger* t= han the default size for fixed-
>> > width text, and since the default s= ize of my window is 80 fixed-
>> > width columns wide, I actually lose= 2-3 columns off the end of each
>> > of your lines.
>> >
>> This is really the receivers problem not t= he senders.
>
>Total nonsense.
>
I do not appreciate your response here!
If you continue with this type of response then I will not be talking to you again.

If you read the MIME spec (NOT THE HTML spec), then you will see that=
display (including line length) is the receiver's problem.
I am talking about Email not the Web. Just because HTML is sent in a
mail message does not change the mail ground rules.

If the sender choses to write lines longer than 80 columns then the <= /TT>
receiving client should be smart enought to display that text without loosing anything.


>By using a "standard" line length but a larger = font, you're
>guarenteeing that anyone with a "standard" size= d window will lose,
>unless they ignore your markup.=
>
NO I am not. Only those people with less than capable clients will
lose. I am tired of having to deal with broken or less featured=
receiving clients. You could tailor and restrict the HTML you genera= te
in Mail, but we will let the user have full control. If he gets in
trouble then its his problem. The sending user will learn over time.=

>I'm not saying that the composer shouldn't be a= ble to control this
>stuff, I'm just saying that the HTML you sent i= s ugly. Those are very
>different statements.
>
I would think that ugly is a subjective point of view. You think it = is
ugly then fine. But that is just you and others may not think so. P= lus
its up to the sending user what format he choses. He could make it l= ook
just fine by your standards.

>tags. The rest of it is gimickry for its own s= ake, and it doesn't
>come free.
>
I find it very hard to believe that you said this. There is a bunch<= /TT>
of stuff that can be done in HTML with images in MAIL that cannot be = done
in standard MIME. "It doesn't come free", what in the world are you<= /TT>
talking about.

>But hey, you're welcome to generate ugly HT= ML in your product.
>I'm sure your users will vote with their feet..= .
>
Again this is totally uncalled for. I have tried to hold a conversat= ion
with you so that mail readers in general can handle HTML in mail. Si= nce
Netscape has the market share it has I believe that interoperation wi= th
you guys is important.

>Nobody's telling web page authors that they can= 't make their pages look
>any way they like. But as yourself, when's the= last time you saw a web
>page that looked like your message? With fixed= -width fonts? With some
>fonts that were so small as to be unreadable? = That looked really bad
>if your window wasn't exactly the right size?
>
>--
Now this is total nonsense. Who cares ? Its all about giving the se= nding
user all the control he can get. If he (me in this case) composes "u= gly"
HTML then it is his personal business. Just as long as the sending u= ser
has the tools he needs to construct what he wants.

--=_03tW34g.bO1996u.N16d000A.r06Y.42:0047e7 Content-Type: image/gif Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-ID: <0.19960603164233.izzy@scr.atm.com> Content-Disposition: inline; filename="SIG.GIF" Content-Description: The Sender's Signature R0lGODlhvgBDAIAAAAAAAP///yH5BAEAAAEALAAAAAC+AEMAQAL+jI+py+0Po5y02ouz3rz7D4YW ABzleBqpyCIkycLw84azOjJrtLfLrephagngC6g4ooJBZON2lBFdpSmzWRQ2raaT0+cwrmozLhmq hHy71OiaF8XCuQE6+F55U/FJrUfPF3jVBShoeIiYqLjI2Oj4CBlTGDYZiWj3I2KU11MJKfYx9Ya5 gbbURzjIVueXQTfWytkqKgTa95qWpmZWtYbmBqwHfJsSZ4lzWOgZGotKeYyn3Cw5DW19jZ2tvc3d 7f0NHi5uaHy6fEzKvCh6uupNVD2UnspcHK+Kn21rUyZ8vuui3R4Kuvgg+bcLVqd58twRrOUmCz1W xBhucUZRk6/+XgXbxLIjZZiEgl44BltY0qOOclksXnDpMCMhWBNZiZwzyFTLh1pO+ixp757GoDZV rvwoEhDCUp46xhynYdLSqFOfQXU1TegfrSi4jptVlenVsWTLmj2LNq3atWzbun0LN67cuXTrng1b xy5ZpyP5fsPL7czLYlD9ggCMNeVDieDgRUM8OODige/s3THc5jDNCV8gP6Y8VOYTz3klc4bYbR81 0T9Iq4bTmuelHV5x5stsA/TIlR5Rk85n5bec20U1mhjCmyTtp1viOdW5WrdNpC/dVXISzFlwhdJb 4hoeGiNL76VPN8e8Z9j4iIxZjxp/HgypOCClYWcPk5fM7OWG+t2s2NMZv8HEWnHgFcVLdn1tR9xB PyHFXnxXEChJexeBR0uEsK2iGnqtPTgTg9vV1gGDOcE3HUqYpOOgh4NVgyKFmvRGom3zCEdDU/7o hdFos1XIY4GxJVOjVXZJVWRX8iXZWDM45shkQnEp9WSOQS55VCNRXjkailx+CWaYYo5JZplyFQAA Ow== --=_03tW34g.bO1996u.N16d000A.r06Y.42:0047e7--