Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 09:22:37 +0930 From: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com> To: John B P Melesky <john@smallflower.com> Cc: "Bill A. K." <billieakay@yahoo.com>, questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Mail standards (was: IE for FreeBSD Petition) Message-ID: <20000523092237.J78939@freebie.lemis.com> In-Reply-To: <3929B1EF.F6B57D2E@smallflower.com> References: <000b01bfc35d$c8c3c030$0200a8c0@bill> <20000522093603.B77130@freebie.lemis.com> <3929B1EF.F6B57D2E@smallflower.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Monday, 22 May 2000 at 17:17:19 -0500, John B P Melesky wrote: > Greg Lehey wrote: >> I think this is a very bad idea. Look at your mail message for one >> good reason why: Microsoft software is just plain broken. You >> probably don't even realise that your message was written without line >> breaks. Isn't it much easier to read like this? > > actually, his email came through (to me, anyway), in multipart > format, with both text and html versions, both in quoted-printable > format. it was, in fact, perfectly standards compliant. I don't know about the HTML version, but the text version didn't have any line breaks. RFC 822 is quite clear about how that kind of text should be displayed. > most email clients (pine and Netscape mail included) have either the > ability to understand html minimally, or the ability to wrap > incoming plaintext messages to the size of the window. the concept > of using carriage returns to simulate line-wrapping is a hackish > relic. *i* should not have to worry about the size of your > window. *your window* should have to worry about the size of your > window. Well, if *you* don't care about the appearance of your messages, this is adequate. When *I* want to make a point, I want to make it in a specific manner. That's why I choose a format which doesn't expect the recipient to reformat it. Maybe you expect my mail reader to put in the capitalization missing from your text, but I don't think that's appropriate either. > that's the point of open standards. Well, hardly. >> In the FreeBSD project, we're trying to get away from Microsoft, not >> come closer to it. > > no. that may be why *you* use FreeBSD, but it is not what the FreeBSD > project is trying to do. in fact, the only places i see MS mentioned > anywhere on the FreeBSD site is in portions of the handbook dealing with > multi-OS systems, and references to specific MS software (like > FrontPage). This is a contradiction? >> If there were a counter-petition to ask Microsoft >> *not* to port IE, I would sign it. > > then create such a petition. there is nothing keeping you from doing so. > do not fault him for trying to get more software ported to FreeBSD. That's not what I'm faulting him for. > if any criticism should be offered, it's that the current stance > (last i heard) was to encourage software companies to port to Linux, > and rely on compatibility. if that position has changed, please > correct me. No, that's still the current position, and I agree with it. Greg -- When replying to this message, please copy the original recipients. For more information, see http://www.lemis.com/questions.html Finger grog@lemis.com for PGP public key See complete headers for address and phone numbers To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000523092237.J78939>