On Sat, Jun 04, 2005 at 12:03:48PM -0500, Rick Langschultz wrote:
I use Outlook XP to compose mail to my boss and to a
support team. I
have to use HTML formatting in my mail messages.
Sorry for the
inconvenience I have caused. If people want to get
picky about the mail
format and not the content of the message, they
should re-evaluate their
purposes involved in developing code, and material
for computers.
If you've ever tried to read an XML/HTML message in a plain-text reader (such as mutt, which is my client of choice), you would understand why folks complain.
To draw an analogy as to how silly your claim is (that the formatting should be ignored completely), consider the following scenarios:
1. A huge C program that works, but has no comments and obfuscated code. "If you can't understand it without comments, you should re-evaluate your programming ability."
2. A patch that has thousands of formatting changes intermixed with bugfixes. "If you can't appreciate the functionality of a freely offered patch that seems to fix a bug, you should re-evaluate your stance as a community-based project."
3. Documentation provided in rendered PS (or another opaque format). "If you can't appreciate the accuracy and user-friendliness of the documentation, you should re-evaluate your position on having a well-documented system."
See, these are all silly. It's easy for one side to just ignore the other -- yes, you may need whatever formatting HTML provides you for work correspondence; it's easy for you to forget that it's even there. Likewise, it's easy for those of us who edit and send raw text to ignore how engrained HTML can be in some mail front-ends. But at the end of the day, the lowest common denominator is plain-text -- and that's something folks will expect you to conform to.
Just like a patch with a thousand formatting changes, now matter how many bugs it fixes, it will be rejected. So to with your mails -- no matter how good the merit is, if we have to mind-parse the gibberish, it's just going to be outright rejected.
Thanks for understanding,
-- Travis
Rick Langschultz
-----Original Message----- From: ros-dev-bounces@reactos.com
[mailto:ros-dev-bounces@reactos.com]
On Behalf Of Mike Nordell Sent: Saturday, June 04, 2005 9:19 AM To: ReactOS Development List Subject: Re: [ros-dev] PowerPC arcitecture?
Rick Langschultz wrote:
<html
xmlns:o=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" =
xmlns:w=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word"
=
[lots and lots of useless XML tags mixed in an
unholy cesspool with HTTP
snipped]
Could you please trim that crap? I am, as I hope the
majority of list
subscribers are too, not especially interested in
that you wrote an
e-mail in MSWord and that your "SpellingState" is "Clean".
Please use plain-text only.
Thank you for your cooperation.
/Mike
Ros-dev mailing list Ros-dev@reactos.com http://reactos.com:8080/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
Ros-dev mailing list Ros-dev@reactos.com http://reactos.com:8080/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
__________________________________ Discover Yahoo! Stay in touch with email, IM, photo sharing and more. Check it out! http://discover.yahoo.com/stayintouch.html
Quandary wrote:
If you've ever tried to read an XML/HTML message in a plain-text reader (such as mutt, which is my client of choice), you would understand why folks complain.
I'd like to point out that I'm a big fan of plain-text e-mail, but to be completely fair towards the original poster, his e-mail DID contain a plain-text section (and correctly marked as an alternative for the HTML as far as I can tell), so a MIME-capable plain-text reader could have simply ignored the HTML part. I agree it is still preferable to send plain-text only messages.
But for those of you who had a lot of trouble reading his message, this is what he said: Rick Langschultz wrote:
I was reading the email on free PowerPC computers available. I wanted to work on a port for powerpc a long time ago, but was shot down in the IRC channel. I want to use pearpc and a native powerpc with FreeBSD or linux in it to compile the project. Also since PowerPC and x86 and x64 have different instruction sets, how will ReactOS implement the NT kernel on non-intel architectures? I would imaging PPC-ata and X86-ata have different addresses. And not all adapters work from x86 on ppc. Maybe someone could work closely with Darwine to get some of this handled.
If you look at the message is was sent in both plain text and HTML format
Quandary wrote:
On Sat, Jun 04, 2005 at 12:03:48PM -0500, Rick Langschultz wrote:
I use Outlook XP to compose mail to my boss and to a
support team. I
have to use HTML formatting in my mail messages.
Sorry for the
inconvenience I have caused. If people want to get
picky about the mail
format and not the content of the message, they
should re-evaluate their
purposes involved in developing code, and material
for computers.
If you've ever tried to read an XML/HTML message in a plain-text reader (such as mutt, which is my client of choice), you would understand why folks complain.
To draw an analogy as to how silly your claim is (that the formatting should be ignored completely), consider the following scenarios:
- A huge C program that works, but has no comments
and obfuscated code. "If you can't understand it without comments, you should re-evaluate your programming ability."
- A patch that has thousands of formatting changes
intermixed with bugfixes. "If you can't appreciate the functionality of a freely offered patch that seems to fix a bug, you should re-evaluate your stance as a community-based project."
- Documentation provided in rendered PS (or another
opaque format). "If you can't appreciate the accuracy and user-friendliness of the documentation, you should re-evaluate your position on having a well-documented system."
See, these are all silly. It's easy for one side to just ignore the other -- yes, you may need whatever formatting HTML provides you for work correspondence; it's easy for you to forget that it's even there. Likewise, it's easy for those of us who edit and send raw text to ignore how engrained HTML can be in some mail front-ends. But at the end of the day, the lowest common denominator is plain-text -- and that's something folks will expect you to conform to.
Just like a patch with a thousand formatting changes, now matter how many bugs it fixes, it will be rejected. So to with your mails -- no matter how good the merit is, if we have to mind-parse the gibberish, it's just going to be outright rejected.
Thanks for understanding,
-- Travis
Rick Langschultz
-----Original Message----- From: ros-dev-bounces@reactos.com
[mailto:ros-dev-bounces@reactos.com]
On Behalf Of Mike Nordell Sent: Saturday, June 04, 2005 9:19 AM To: ReactOS Development List Subject: Re: [ros-dev] PowerPC arcitecture?
Rick Langschultz wrote:
<html
xmlns:o=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" =
xmlns:w=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word"
=
[lots and lots of useless XML tags mixed in an
unholy cesspool with HTTP
snipped]
Could you please trim that crap? I am, as I hope the
majority of list
subscribers are too, not especially interested in
that you wrote an
e-mail in MSWord and that your "SpellingState" is "Clean".
Please use plain-text only.
Thank you for your cooperation.
/Mike
Ros-dev mailing list Ros-dev@reactos.com http://reactos.com:8080/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
Ros-dev mailing list Ros-dev@reactos.com http://reactos.com:8080/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
__________________________________ Discover Yahoo! Stay in touch with email, IM, photo sharing and more. Check it out! http://discover.yahoo.com/stayintouch.html _______________________________________________ Ros-dev mailing list Ros-dev@reactos.com http://reactos.com:8080/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
-
Jasper van de Gronde -
Nate DeSimone -
Quandary