Email is not part of the web, and more multimedia and more round trips is not more performant, it's the opposite.
Tables are pretty much the only cross-platform/client way to format email.
But then email is one large unsanitized input that has so many rules to be applied, what could go wrong.
That's why email attachments alone are an utter MIME-field when it comes to security.
> That's why email attachments alone are an utter MIME-field when it comes to security.
And yes, remember the 35C3 talk on e2e email security.
Not seen that, watching now (about half way thru) and nice to retouch upon a feild I've not working in for many years and seeing how not much has changed. Equally a little depressing, to see the same types of problems 10 years on.
That ship sailed the moment it got named email, leading people to think of it as an electronic form of mail, and so to expect that eventually it could be used for any documents you would send by mail.
With mail, I can send anything I can print or handwrite on paper, which includes text in multiple fonts, graphics, charts, tables, in a variety of colors. I can also include anything that fits in the envelope, so I can include files on floppy or disc or memory card or a thin thumb drive.
Sure, earlier email systems could not handle anything more than plain text, but because it was called email many people assumed that was just because common computers and displays didn't have the capability to handle more.
Once the GUI became prevalent for home and office computers, rich email was inevitable.
In retrospect, if the people who designed the earlier email systems had wanted the restriction to plain text to be a design goal, rather than just a consequence of the technology of the day, they should have named it etelegram to make it clear.
I'd go so far as to argue that the parent's reaction -- "email should be plain-text" -- is exactly why the horrors of HTML are what we have today. No one adopted any of the better alternatives out there and then Netscape -- a web browser, after all -- hacked in HTML mail, and "worse is better" won the day yet again.
The web is not just what happens in a web browser:
> An information object is "on the web" if it has a URI.
— Tim Berners-Lee, Axioms of Web Architecture, https://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Axioms.html
Serving public URIs for messages must be done by separate web servers like a webmail client, or a mail archiving tool such as Pipermail.
Note that there's no requirement for something to be an HTTP URI specifically. Any URI will do.
> Email is not part of the web
That's "email", not "emails". I understood that to mean email the concept / technology, not "emails" as in individual email resources.
By that reading, yes, email is on the web. You can link to a mailbox with the mailto: URI scheme.
If you read it as "Individual emails are not on the web" instead, then webmail seems to cover that.
If I reside in "urn:oid:2.16.840" and I read "https://news.ycombinator.com", is that what they call the inner-platform effect?
The web is an abstract information space that can contain arbitrary links between objects. The web isn't something you load in a browser, it's a way of organising links between things. So, yes, you can link to books, movies, etc. Anything with a URI.
You might be interested in this early document about the World-Wide Web:
https://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/1996/ppf.html
It describes what I'm saying in more detail, including explicitly mentioning books as something that can be addressed in URI space.
More seriously, I think that -- if pressed -- I'd say that the identifiers are on the web, but the things are not. Other than that, I believe we would agree???
That said, the origin of this discussion is in relation to Google's launching of AMP for e-mail. The justification was that e-mails are on the web, so it's OK to use AMP to push them forward. A better viewpoint, though one I disagree with, relates AMP to being a better mode of HTML. (As opposed to one of the Web.)
I think that TBL is very incorrect here. If that statement is accurate, then most of the non-web internet would have to be considered "the web".
You think Tim Berners-Lee, inventor of the World-Wide Web, is very incorrect about what makes up the World-Wide Web?
Content-Type: text/html seems to disagree with your assertion.
The output from man -H is not part of the web, no matter what its mime type is.
HTML is not the same as the web.