On Tue, Jul 06, 2010 at 06:32:40PM +0200, Per Jessen wrote: > Paul M Foster wrote: > > > Here is the real problem with HTML email. Any straight text message > > will swell to many times its size when you HTML-ize it. Okay, so now > > you're sending the message around the internet to perhaps hundreds or > > thousands of users, using up many times the bandwidth that the actual > > message really needs. It's like installing a 100w light bulb when a > > 60w will do. There's simply no reason to suck CPU cycles all over the > > internet just to make your message "prettier". > > In principle, I agree - in practice, CPU cycles are getting cheaper by > the minute, and being wasted all the time. Not using HTML is highly > unlikely to have a measurable impact on anybodys CPU cycles. I keep hearing this argument. Here are what I consider similar arguments. "Everyone else pours their waste into the river. Ours won't make that much difference." "Our smokestack is just one of hundreds in the city. No one will notice the additional smoke." "Putting paint thinner down the toilet won't make any difference. The water processing plant will clean it up." Just because everyone else wastes CPU doesn't mean you have to contribute to it, too. > > Besides, HTML is not just about making the message prettier. A number > of times I have experienced that important system notifications (from > our systems to customers') were simply ignored, apparently due to being > plain text. We decided to "jazz them up" a bit, and it worked. > s/prettier/more noticeable/g Same point. Paul -- Paul M. Foster -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
