From: "Ted White" <twhite8 at cox.net>
To: "WSFA members" <WSFAlist at WSFA.org>
Subject: [WSFA] Re: Unicode and email
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 22:51:34 -0500
Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at WSFA.org>

----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Jablow" <ejablow at cox.net>
To: "WSFA members" <WSFAlist at WSFA.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2005 9:47 PM
Subject: [WSFA] Unicode and email

>
> On Mar 29, 2005, at 11:56 AM, Ted White wrote:
> >
> > It also takes over your email; responding to a post in unicode your
> > reply
> > will also be in unicode, even if you've set your email client for plain
> > text replies.
> >
> > --Ted White
>
> You are mixing up Unicode and HTML email.  Unicode is an encoding scheme
> designed to allow every alphabet (and ideographic system and abjad,
> etc.) and
> language to be treated on equal terms. It does not imply any sort of
> formatting,
> though Unicode files and plain ASCII files (or ISO Latin-1) files need
> different
> treatment.
>
> HTML email is a scheme for giving email the same capabilities and
> security
> risks as HTML files on the web.  I agree that HTML email is bad; I can
> live with
> the MIME extensions  that allow people to attach files to email, as I
> can control
> what to do with the attachments.

Actually, no.  I'm not mixing up Unicode and HTML email.  On the Unicode
posts my top-of-the-screen bar says "Unicode 8" rather than the subject
header of the post in question.   And the fucker "takes over" my response,
putting *it* in Unicode 8.  Once one person introduces it to a list, it
will take over all the responses to that post, and most of the responses to
those responses as well.   The actual font is a large (14 pt, I think)
sans-serif in bold:  very aggressive or assertive in appearance.

--Ted White