On Mon, Mar 01, 2021 at 12:05:49AM -0500, Keith Moore wrote:
> Ok, but to be fair: HTML is a disaster for email.
Mostly in the case of badly machine-generated HTML. I have
little-difficulty with email sent by humans, where the MUA also emits a
sensible text/plain variant.
> Way back in the mid-1990s most of us thought it would work out ok, and
> more likely to succeed than text/richtext. But we didn't really take
> the time to understand the nature of the problem in either case.
> It's hard to write a good html editor for email, especially one that
> handles inline replies properly, and every single HTML editor for
> email I know of botches this.
Way back in the 90's I for one expected that HTML would work more poorly
than it turned out. As for editors, Apple's Mail.app does a fine job of
editing both HTML and non-HTML email, and handles quoting and inline
replies well. It is mostly Outlook that's historically poor at RFC2822
and MIME support, because ... MAPI and NIH.
This is not a hard problem, the real issue is that the industry has not
for some time been investing much effort into improving MUAs, its all
walled gardens and cloud now.
--
Viktor.
