> On Aug 8, 7:56 am, Phil Carmody yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:

>> Xah gmail.com> writes:

>>> On Aug 7, 10:54 pm, Tim X wrote:

>>>> I disagree with your suggestion that HTML is technically superior. You
>>>> can't just make a sweeping statement like that without actually defining
>>>> what it is that e-mail is supposed to provide. As someone else pointed
>>>> out, an F16 is technically superior to a bicycle, but if allyou want to
>>>> do is go to the corner shop, that technical superiority is not only a
>>>> waste, but also a handicap.

>>

>>> HTML is simply technically superior. Sure, F15 is better than bicycle
>>> but ridiculous. However, HTML is better than plain text in email is
>>> not ridiculous. It is the standard the world uses by large, and people
>>> want rich text in email. Wikipedia says the support for html email in
>>> email programs is 97%%.

>>
>> An utterly spurious statistic. Support for Finnish emails in
>> email programs is probably closer to 100%% than 97%%, but that
>> doesn't mean that everyone should be or wants to be using
>> Finnish.

>
> Ok. You used analogy to refute my reason. What is your real argument
> that the ability to send/receive html formatted mail in emacs is not a
> good thing?