Dear Marketing Departments of every company I’ve ever dealt with,
I am one of the few people in the world who uses an email client that prefers plain text emails. I pride myself in this, because I don’t like burdening people with undue formatting when I can express my opinions and requests in a much simpler way.
Whenever you send me an email, you use a content type called “multipart/alternative”. This content type is used to indicate that the email is available in multiple different alternative formats, and in the case of email, it usually means that I’m allowed to view the email in HTML or in plain text.
What it does *not* mean is: This email is in HTML, but we wanted to taunt you with the fact, so we included a plain text version that says “Get a better email client, you fucking philistine.”
If you’re going to send me HTML-only emails, that’s OK! I have a web browser that I can use to view them. You should probably consider writing a text-only version of the emails you send, but I can live without it. The height of annoyance, however, is when you send me an email I *can* read only to inform me that I *can’t* read it.
””””’,,,……………………………..e..pppppppppppppppppppppppppppyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyffffffffffffffffffffffffffffmfffffff//ggggggggggggggggggggcccccccccccccccrrrrrrrrrrrllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaadddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddoooooooooooooooooooooooooooeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuiiiiiiissdddddddddddidddhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhtttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt/nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnsssssssssssssssssssssssss;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx x xbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////================================================“““““““““““““`[[[[[[[[[]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]\——-\—————–nnnnnn
From the W3C CEO’s Q&A pages:
A situation where premium content is relegated to applications inaccessible to the Open Web or completely locked down devices would be far worse for all.
When I first visited the page, commenting was disabled, so I wrote one anyway. Its text is below.
But of course you realize that’s what you’re doing.
If you build DRM into an HTML spec, and some free browsers decide they want to implement it differently, or not at all, then those browsers won’t be able to access the premium content.
And how do you intend to decide whether a browser implements these interfaces correctly without unnecessarily impeding free development and experimentation in the browser world? Are you going to have Microsoft sign our browsers’ binaries? Is the W3C going to issue keys after reviewing each browser version? I run Firefox Nightly, how am I going to access premium content?
This is a step away from your precious “Open Web” and it’s obvious. Let the backend and delivery systems deal with security, the browser shouldn’t be the police force against the user. If someone really wants to shackle their viewers, let them do it through their own applications like they always have. HTML is *our* media format and it would be unfair of the WHATWG or the W3C to suddenly give it to the media industry.