Quoting
"But if plaintext is so good, why is this page written in HTML?"
This is a reference document, not an email, you twit.See also embedding (e.g.) a JPEG in a Word document and then attaching that Word document to an e-mail.
Ugh.
* https://old.reddit.com/r/sysadmin/comments/ch83sz/why_the_he...
And no, creating snippets on a wiki is also an extra unnecessary step. Email is just easier and faster.
send the plaintext code snippet and they'll decide.
No query language yet, but you can export the cleaned up email threads and then query them however you want.
"where's the information on that?" "oh, you should have it in your email somewhere. I think I got one a few months ago about it"
no. just. no. If you care _at all_ about your reference documents you get them out of email ASAP.
And that's ignoring that anyone can delete old emails and thus not have what you considered a reference doc but they just considered old mail. Or that the server could loose your emails and no-one has they synced locally these days.
Newsgroups are better in that regard. You can reference the message using the message-id value. A lot of newsgroups would have FAQS posted every 30 days or so. A reference document that's periodically updated could be sent the same way.
But often I have to communicate via email, report on complex issues, etc. It is nice to have some headings, tables, images in there.
Software that would strip all html out of emails for security would be handy
I thought it was very odd for what is essentially a marketing post.
Since when? I have never heard anyone say this in my entire life. I want emails to look good. So I guess people are different and we can't draw a simple conclusion about what people want from email?
The use of quotes in replies is also part of the article and is definitely a better way to go with bottom replies than the current default of top replies.
Which is my experience as well — it happens to be easy to quote.
The real quoting that email supports, the reply w/ embedded copy of replied email, is unaffected by html/plaintext choice.
I don't see how. It's just the same as plain text.
<div class="quote"> quoted content </div>
It's far better than trying to keep count of how many ">" are in play, and deal with the vagaries of soft linebreaks and hard linebreaks and wrapping of plaintext.
<div class="quote">
<li>Second</li>
<li>Third</li>
</div>
Well, why bother writing his own post in rich text then? He has headings, bold, links, grey font at the bottom, image.
Don't get me wrong - for high security systems/environments, plaintext is way to go. For everyday life use cases I prefer html. Although with Markdown rendered text I would be pretty happy. And enough for author to cover his post sans the green/red boxes and grey text.