I still don't get the idea why Alison is upset
because of HTML.
It's a 7 Bit encoded text/Plain message of unknown charset (so
US-ASCII is to be assumed) - so where is the gag ?
I can't, and won't, speak for Allison.
However, from conversations I've carried on with her in the
past, she likes, as do I, the "in-band" method of replying
to a pervious poster's comments, like I'm doing now. Of
course, since the only part of your message I wanted to
reply to was the snippet above, this message isn't a good
demonstration of what I'm trying to say.
Anyway, it's easier to intersperse my replies with the
original comments- I do not like the way many people
just stick all their comments either at the top or at
the bottom of a message.
Now, if I reply to an HTML-format message and intersperse
my remarks with the originals, and FORGET to convert from
HTML to plain-text before I begin, some people will see my
post and see only the quoted original, and won't see my
replies unless they want to wade through the HTML-ized
version of it.
If we were all just posting manifestos, Allison and I
might not object as much as we do. But we're trying to
carry on conversations, and I simply think plain text
does the best job of carrying that conversation.
I live for the day when Outlook or Exchange allow me to
simply establish a filter that strips all incoming mail
of any HTML....
Regards,
-dq