At 11:43 AM 11/15/94, Ned Freed wrote:
Rhys, I'm not sure on what basis you are making this assertion. Is it
because HTML is a less complicated markup language, hence more likely to be
successfully interpreted by a human reader in the absence of a mechanical
one, or is there some other measure that you're applying?
I don't think the complexity of the language has much of anything to do with
it.
That's exactly the point. If the only comparison is the relative
readability of HTML vs RTF, that's too subjective a measure to be
applicable.
At 7:55 AM 11/16/94, Mr Rhys Weatherley wrote:
For the set of features required by typical e-mail messages, HTML stacks
up quite well in the readability stakes against alternatives like
text/enriched.
Ah, this is a different matter. So the question I see is "should we
discard or prefer HTML to text/enriched to minimize the number of markup
languages UAs should have to interpret?"
Is it the consensus that HTML is preferable to text/enriched for
representing styled text?
When we debated this earlier, we agreed that alternatives to text/enriched
were overkill compared to what we wanted to accomplish w/r/t styled text.
I believe that was true then. However, the explosion of software which
handles HTML gives me pause.
john noerenberg
jwn2(_at_)qualcomm(_dot_)com
noerenberg.j (Applelink)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't it always seem to go,
That you don't know what you got til it's gone
Joni Mitchell, "Big Yellow Taxi", 1969
----------------------------------------------------------------------