Re: Why choose plain text over HTML email?

Glenn Glazer

On 2/16/2020 16:35, Laurence Marks wrote:
Glenn Glazer wrote:
2) While it is true that HTML encoding makes the size of the message larger than plain text, the difference is vanishingly small compared to a single image or attachment, which is orders of magnitude larger than the difference. When all is said and done, HTML is still text, still ASCII characters. <bold>foo</bold>  adds the cost of exactly 13 characters over just typing the word 'foo'. And, as Chris points out, overquoting is also a huge consumer of bandwidth, much greater (especially for long threads) than the number of characters used for HTML tags.

Glenn, the tag was <b>, not <bold>. That adds 7 characters, not 13.

Underline and Italic are <i> and <u> still but <b> was deprecated and replaced by <strong> because the purists decided that it should denote intent, not appearance. That gets it up to 15 characters. However, the browser creators don't want to break on old web pages so both are still supported.

I still use <b> for convenience but the nanny-state editor in Drupal changes it to <strong> when I save.


I agree, but I am not sure that the difference between 7 and 13 changes the point.



PG&E Delenda Est

Join to automatically receive all group messages.