The problem of RFC-formats and editing tools and the problem of HTML for email and mail archives -- these are fundamentally the same problem. Alice wants to send something she saw to Bob, with some confidence that she'll know what Bob can see. (Taking into account accessibility, platform-independence, and archiving -- if Bob can take a long time to read). Right now, all you can do is snap a screenshot or send a PDF, each with its own drawbacks. -- https://LarryMasinter.net https://interlisp.org > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of John Levine > Sent: Monday, March 1, 2021 4:42 PM > To: ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: HTML for email > > In article <20210301235244.GN21@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> you write: > >On Mon, Mar 01, 2021 at 06:47:20PM -0500, Keith Moore wrote: > >I put the "web" qualifier in because there is also an official IMAP > >archive, that does preserve the message as submitted. But it's not > >very discoverable and requires quite a bit more effort to set up and use. > > There's also an mbox format archive for people who really want the bits at: > > https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/text/ > > It's rsync-able. > > If people want the mail archive to show HTML, there's certainly plenty of > HTML sanitizers we could use to show the HTML version of messages if we > thought that was a good use of the tools team's time. > > On the other hand, perhaps we could make up our mind first whether > formatted e-mail is a part of the way the world works now, or it's a scourge > to be stomped out. Like, you know, NAT. > > R's, > John
