[JohnFen]

> An email is essentially just an HTML document, like a web page, except it's visualized in an email client, rather than a web browser. However, both are capable of rendering, which is the process of turning HTML code into text, rectangles, and images, i.e. the visualization of the content.

No, it is not. An email is a text document. That document might be HTML, but it doesn't have to be. And if such email is sent to me, the HTML is never rendered because I don't allow it.

The only time I get HTML through email is when it's spam or commercial email, and screw them. Sometimes a real person will neglect to turn HTML off in their mail client, but even then, they aren't really using HTML or are using it for trivial things, so not allowing HTML only makes the garbage email hard to read.

[thiht]

Once again the stereotypical HN comment of « no this is all wrong, my way is right »

For all communications that matter today, email is HTML. No one cares that JohnFen choses to not render them as HTML.

[andreashaerter]

> No one cares that JohnFen choses to not render them as HTML.

Ironically, this is a reaction to "email is text only!" as stereotypical as the comment you are venting about.

You simply put your own bubble in the center of the universe („all communication that matters“ ... ?!). For example: Our company cares, our whole team cares. My bubble cares. I care. And I think we are running serious business.

We might not be the majority, but when one is just looking at the amounts of mail, even common users are less important then bots.

But I understand many people do not care about because they simply don't have to and/or are not into topic. It „works“. And therefore I'm still not sorting out HTML emails in my inbox or complain when receiving them. But I will not make the problem even bigger and start sending them (so... leading by example at most :-D).

Additionally, I think the article is another proof why HTML emails still is a bad idea although I don't blame people on the streets. Even if it "works". But clearly, there is much text email out there that matters.

[SoftTalker]

Whast about text messages? We must have HTML in text message too, I think, so that we can use them more effectively.

[ttepasse]

I believe the 20 year old MMS standard supported in principle a XHTML subset via WAP.

[thiht]

Not necessarily HTML, but yeah? Why not?

[shkkmo]

> No one cares that JohnFen choses to not render them as HTML.

Many people care. If you aren't including a plain text version of your email, you aren't following email best practices.

[TheOtherHobbes]

If people care it's not because of an RFC from 30 years ago, it's because marketers have recently started to notice that plain text can sometimes cut through in a way that HTML doesn't.

Sometimes being the word.

Most corporate email will continue to be HTML for the foreseeable. There's no point expecting it to be anything else, because it just won't be.

[Terretta]

>> An email is a text document ... the HTML is never rendered because I don't allow it.

> For all communications that matter today, email is HTML.

Ha, thwarted you both!

I only accept and send RTF.

[legitster]

> The only time I get HTML through email is when it's spam or commercial email, and screw them.

Heaven help any friends/coworkers who tried to send you an email with color, embedded pictures, or bullet point lists.

[tomjen3]

You will hate me then. I have recently started to embrace html emails. I needed to book a room for a series of events and color highlightinged the available options.

Another time I needed to provide a summary of options for fees and that got added as a table with colours to indicate fees, profits and losses.

And I don’t care at all if it meant that it could not be read in mutt. At some point we have to march forward or we will never progress at all.

[ungamedplayer]

This all comes back to the question of if we consider new to be progress.

[happytoexplain]

I agree with the OP - it's not misleading to say an email is "essentially" HTML, regardless of whether the client supports parsing out the markup. Browsers too will happily render an HTML file consisting only of the string "hello world", and yet it's still a web page.

[jgalt212]

I assume your preferred browser is lynx, or maybe you just pipe curl into emacs?

[mr_mitm]

I use mutt and unfortunately in the corporate world you can't just ignore HTML or even HTML only mails. I pipe them to elinks, works 99.9% of the time easily.

[JohnFen]

That may be the case, but that still doesn't make HTML a part of email itself. It's using email to send/receive HTML.

[JimDabell]

The ability to use formats other than plain text have been a standard part of email since 1992:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1341

HTML email is not merely an HTML file sent by email – it is the email.

[shkkmo]

> HTML email is not merely an HTML file sent by email – it is the email.

I'm not sure if the semantic distinction makes sense. An attached file in an email is the also the email. Both HTML, images, and other content types are all sent in the same manner in the body of the email.

[JimDabell]

> Both HTML, images, and other content types are all sent in the same manner in the body of the email.

This is not the case. In the case of an attachment, the message body is multipart/mixed, where one part is the actual message the sender typed and other parts are the attachments. In the case of an HTML email, the message body is multipart/alternative, where the parts are two or more representations of the actual message typed by the user.

If what you were saying were true, you wouldn’t be able to send an HTML document as an attachment to an email without it being interpreted as the message typed by the user. There is a clear difference between an attachment and the message itself; HTML email is the message itself, not an attachment.

[anthk]

No, is not, MIME it's like a bundled blob adjointed to a text message.

[JimDabell]

That’s not what MIME is at all. Please read the RFC.

[NamTaf]

This is a tautology. What does the T in HTML stand for?

It’s all text if you split enough hairs.

[JohnFen]

Umm, no? I don't understand your point...

[jgalt212]

> And if such email is sent to me, the HTML is never rendered because I don't allow it.

This part feels like you're being difficult for the sake of being difficult. I agree that presentation >> content for many emails, but stuff like bolding, monospace, and inline images is genuinely useful in emails.

[bitwize]

> No, it is not. An email is a text document.

"Why don't you use a mail client from this century." --the IT guy at a former job of mine