« On piracy | Main | Why is it so hard to buy scriptable software from Apple? »

For many years now, HTML email has been the domain of cl00l3ss n00bi3z, AOL'ers, Spammers, etc. No one who really knows anything about email would use it. “It's useless”, “It's bloated”, “It's a sign that Microsloth is winning”...yadda...yaddaa...yadda. But of late, I've discovered something else about it.

When properly used, HTML email is a damned handy tool.

Face it, email has changed. Ten years ago, it was a way to convey simple messages. Most access was still dialup, and size counted. Email was used for what Instant Messaging is used for today. Short notifications, setting up real meetings, sending small, (or not so small) files, and the rest.

The only way to create HTML email was to use some tool like Netscape. (Eudora and MS Mail actually use Rich Text, which is a different way to get the same effect.) It was hated, and with good reason. Most of the people making HTML email were doing it for the email version of the early “Should Steve Shave” web sites. It was useless, poorly done, rife with sounds, ugly background colors and the rest. I hated it too.

But in the last few years, a funny thing has happened. Email has gone from a secondary to a primary business communications tool. In some cases, THE business communications tool. Along with this, the need for more than ASCII text went from something that only n00bs wanted to a requirement.

If nothing else, a huge chunk of the world can't use ASCII. Anyone with a double-byte character set, (Like most of Asia), can't use ASCII. So we have to use Unicode. Even within single byte character sets, ASCII's hardly reliable. A poorly set up email or list server will mangle such single - byte character sets like French, Norwegian, etc. So, to paraphrase Scott McNealy, ASCII's dead, get over it. We have to use Unicode.

Now, I'll agree that a lot of the implementations of HTML email...well...suck. Things like background colors, embedded multimedia files, inter-network links, javascript, etc., are not only a hindrance to proper communication, but can be a security hazard too. Even more advanced HTML features like CSS, dynamic features, etc., are even more useless.

But should we throw out the good with the bad? Are there no features of HTML that can enhance communication? Obviously there are some good formatting features in HTML that would be useful in an email context. I imagine that what we need to do is look at a mail client with limited HTML such as Microsoft Entourage, or a smaller word processor like TextEdit.

For example, Tabs. We can use HTML to allow for real tabs. Tabs are a valuable formatting construct, and the ability to just use the tab key would not suck. Tabs could easily be represented as either a series of nbsp entities, or a horizontal space 5 characters long. Tabs help indicate the beginning of a paragraph, at least in English, and as such enhance readability and communication.

Being able to easily change fonts and or font sizes. Yes, this does get abused, but usually not for long. The fact is, that in some cases, being able to easily change fonts and font sizes, (for example, being able to use a monospaced font for source code snippets, or a larger font size for a recipient you know has visual problems) enhances communication.

Basic font style formatting. While I am *very* adept at the ASCII trick of using characters such as the asterisk to show emphasis of a word, it's not as instantly obvious as italics, bold, or even both. Underlining is another great way to draw attention to things. Superscripts and subscripts are things that should be supported as well. I mean, it's MUCH nicer to represent gravitational acceleration on Earth as 9.8m/sec² is clearer than 9.8m/sec^2. How about alignments? Again, while not something that should be used constantly, there are times when it comes in handy.

I like centered alignment for things like quotes, or text I really want to set off from the rest of the message. It's a great way to grab attention and communicate a point more clearly. Lists...proper numbered or bulleted lists. With nice formatting that sets the numbers/bullets off properly. If I never had to try and manually do that again, it will be too soon. Even text colors.

Yes, that's right, colored text is not the work of the devil. Especially if, as I often do, you want to post code snippets from AppleScript or any other language. Being able to have my comments green, etc. helps set off the different parts of the code, increasing clarity. I'm not advocating every single part of HTML in email. That would be silly.

But I think that if the major email client vendors, such as Microsoft, Qualcomm, Lotus, Apple, Ximian, etc., would get together and create an email subset of HTML...perhaps emHTML? Then you could have a nice, standard, way to have increased formatting in emails without making it an internet version of Word. So I think I shall have to officially get off the “Email must be nothing but ASCII text” train. It's going to happen anyway folks, so how about dealing with it proactively, as opposed to the fingers-in-ears-and-yelling reaction that the 'Net Pharts have to change.

Comments

Doesn't rich text solve most/all of these issues without the need for a new HTML subset? Fonts, colors, etc., with some bloat, but without the unnecessary flexibility of html?

Posted by: steve | March 9, 2004 10:47 AM

right now, there are only two relatively major clients that don't support HTML creation in Email...Eudora and Mail.app. Rich Text implementations are TOTALLY platform - specific, which is why you have such problems with Outlook Rich Text to almost any other email client. (winmail.dat anyone?) As well, HTML engines are ubiquitous, so in theory, email client developers could simply use whatever engine exists on the platform(s) their product runs on and not have to write their own rendering engine. This is how you get live QuickTime support in email apps on OS X. WIth HTML, it's simply a matter of discarding features, and using available resources on the host OS. With Rich Text, you'd have to create a common implementation standard, and get people to rewrite their engines to support it. In the long run, HTML is going to be easier.

Posted by: John C. Welch | March 9, 2004 11:42 AM

I'm not saying CSS is useless. I'm saying it's inappropriate for email ;-) The idea here is to do this in a way that works in the widest possible range of uses. CSS is great, but two CSS - compliant browsers viewing a CSS - compliant site can show you rather different things. So, while not as ELEGANT as CSS, a more simplistic formatting model is probably better for email. Even outside of interpretation issues, CSS is just OVERKILL for email. Unless you create emCSS

Posted by: John C. Welch | March 17, 2004 2:42 PM