Comments on: More TextMate Goodness: HTML emails

By: Brett Terpstra

Brett Terpstra — Wed, 08 Nov 2006 14:54:14 +0000

Whether I like it or not, some of my clients require me to compose newsletters for them in HTML with photos of products and what basically amounts to the spam you get from most major vendors. The mailers I use include text alternate MIME enclosures for people who have HTML disabled, and I consider that a viable alternative. This option opens up a chance for me to take a little more control over the content and formatting of these emails without using said mailers and I’m very happy to learn about it!

Thanks,
Brett

By: Thomas Aylott

Thomas Aylott — Fri, 12 May 2006 13:52:12 +0000

I’m glad _someone_ likes my HTML to email commands :D

I agree with Allan about the pure text. It’s best maybe 90% of the time.

By: Allan W.

Allan W. — Thu, 11 May 2006 23:32:55 +0000

Markdown rocks! I use MD for all my web CMS work, and train my clients in its use. I like the idea of Markdown-aware email readers, that’s very original.

However, I don’t understand this vehemence in the area of HTML-emails being eeeevilll. Rich typography and other things like HTML links (something Mail fails horribly at) and images can, in the right hands, clarify and illuminate better than text only.

MacLeay’s point about fonts is correct. Jeremey, you’re enjoying Vera Sans by yourself. And, Thunderbird is nice, but I’d like to use Mail.app. Why it can’t do some basic HTML formatting, I’ll never understand.

How can one say that text-only bullet lists are ‘better’? The text doesn’t indent, nor does it wrap underneath the bullet like a good list should. It looks decidedly unpolished.

I suppose a text-only world is fine for you spartans out there, and for those who are reading emails in awful readers like Eudora or (gasp!) Pine. I would say that 99% of the emails I send are plain-text. Sometimes, however, one’s point is amplified with judicious use of italics, HTML links, and a perhaps few bullet points.

By: Robert MacLeay

Robert MacLeay — Thu, 11 May 2006 19:45:40 +0000

Jeremy says “I use Bitstream Vera Sans Mono, which is beautiful, modern, and free. ”

I don’t, so the email you send me will be rendered in the default monospace font of my mail reader.

All this seems a lot of fuss when Thunderbird, which is free, supports sending hmtl-formatted email.

By: Daniel Lawson

Daniel Lawson — Thu, 11 May 2006 13:53:35 +0000

If you’re already using Markdown, rendering your e-mail as HTML seems all the more indefensible. The Markdown is already well-formatted and readable. Perhaps what we need, in fact, is Markdown-aware mail *readers* — for those who want formatted messages, their mail reader runs Markdown on the message (and maybe even attaches their own stylesheet), but for the rest of us, the message is already in a human-readable (and attractive) format without extra gunk flying over the wires.

By: Jeremey

Jeremey — Thu, 11 May 2006 13:30:56 +0000

I enjoy your blog, so no hard feelings, but as you yourself point out, HTML email is just wrong. Just say no. There is no reason for sending an HTML email. None. Ever. Lists work just as well in plain text, if not better. I can see thinking “it would be nice if I could send a few bullet items in this email”, but if so, then just do it in text, it honestly looks better and it will be legible and consistent to all your recipients. That and use a monospaced font. I use Bitstream Vera Sans Mono, which is beautiful, modern, and free. Encourage others to do the same!