Explaining Open Standards email attachements

Xavi Drudis Ferran xdrudis at tinet.cat
Wed Mar 31 12:27:18 UTC 2010

> hi Hugo,
> * Hugo Roy <hugo at fsfe.org> [2010-03-30 17:34:21 +0200]:
>> When you attach a file to an email, please make sure that your
>> correspondent will be able to read your files correctly. It is a basic
>> principle of courtesy. There is an easy way to make sure it is possible:
>> use open standards. If you do so, your correspondent will have the
>> possibility to choose which program he or she wants.
> Perhaps it would be good to have a list of different attachements. For
> example:
> - Text: Include it directly in the e-mail. If it has more formating
>   there are other options like html, tex, rtf, odt, ...

it has more formating -> it needs more formating ?

Somebody already made the point that often formating isn't needed even if
it's already present and accessibility / portability / bigger audience might be more interesting.

On the other hand. RTF is open in any way ?
It's been ages since I last tried but I think not even one version of MS Office
could open another version of MS Office rtf docs correctly. Let alone third
party apps. It had a published especification by a single party that changed
it with every revision of some of its software.

> - Audio: Use ogg vorbis, or if you need a better quality flac.
> - Images: ...

That's if you can't do anything better than attach huge files to mails, but that's
probably another story.

> Beside that I like the text.

Me too, thanks.

And for me the page at http://documentfreedom.org/Open_Standards
is well meant and in the right direction, but needs more work, in the
lines of what was already pointed out in this list. I'm not sure I could really improve it
and keep it simple and short. But tha twas another thread or the wiki, I guess...

More information about the Discussion mailing list