NOT OT: re plain text vs HTML

[stu w]

I'm just curious, but has anyone else tried Knoppix 6.0/Adriane yet? It
uses the LXDE window manager, but it was specifically developed for
visually impaired users. I tried it, and found it to be a little too
chatty, but it othrewise seemed to work OK. I had it reading news
articles from the BBC website to me the other night (since it has an
English accent).
	Here's the Distrowatch announcement:

http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20090202#released

Here is a torrent download of the CD, courtesy of Bob Elzer's previous
posting:

  http://www.torrentdownloads.net/torrent/405029/KNOPPIX+6.0+English
+Version.html


On Tue, 2009-02-03 at 10:31 -0700, Dazed_75 wrote:
> Technomage wrote:
> >There are, in fact, a few of us (like me) who use text only readers for
> >various reasons (such as visual impairment) and html formatted messages
> >are definitely the bane of out existence.
> >
> >its been proper etiquette on the internet since its inception that mail
> >usually is plain text and if you wish to send media (pictures, etc) that
> >its attached (in mime printable form). this may seem archaic, but it
> >generally works out well for most of us.
> >
> >now my client here can read html formatted messages, but the speech
> >device will not read me the output, instead it will read the underlying
> >source of the text (which gets noisy, frustrating, and tends to have me
> >filter such without even reading it)
> >
> >I, for one, have a problem with such mails and tend to filter them into
> >the junk box. if anything important gets in there, its gone (if its
> >really important, the sender will have sent as plain text with an html
> >attachment <preferred>. this way, I can still read it and those with
> >extra features can use the html to their own contentment).
> >
> >sorry of I may seem a bit terse toward those using html formatted text
> >messages, but you folks should be aware there are almost 30 million
> >others like me and we would rather not have our lives made any harder
> >than it already is.
> 
> Finally a good reason to use plain text as opposed to reasons to avoid
> HTML.  I confess this had not occurred to me.  I would have think that
> modern text readers would read HTML embedded text without source tags
> etc. even had I thought about it.  If there are not, there certainly
> need to be.  Sounds like an opportunity for someone.
> 
> I use gmail for this list and a few other things.  gmail really has no
> formatting means for plain text which is one reason to prefer the
> "Rich formatting" option.  To even include technomages comment as
> "quoted" I had to manually insert the symbols on each line.  Other
> email clients offer more formatting tools for plain text.  Sounds like
> a suggestion to send to google.
> 
> For most email I use Thunderbird.  Thunderbird has an option that says
> "When sending messages in HTML and one or more recipients are not
> listed as being able to receive HTML:"
> - Ask me what to do
> - Convert the message to plain text
> - Send the message in HTML anyway
> - Send the message in both plain text and HTML
> 
> I think the last option is the default, but all I know for sure is
> that is what mine is set to.  I never checked whether that means it
> sends both to all recipients or separate sends for plain text
> recipients.  Would that email had something similar.
> 
> **** Technomage, do you know if your reader works right for a message
> that Thunderbird sends with that 4th option?
> 
> The Tbird address book allows you to specify for each recipient what
> format they prefer.  I notice also that the send options in
> Thunderbird allow format selection based on the destination domain.
> Mine shows a number of domains under HTML, but none under Plain Text