And the argument that anything beyond plain text is a waste and ruins everything applies to literally every single medium out there where the written word is conveyed: webpages, magazines, printed flyers, books, etc. It's laughable to think that all formatting of any kind beyond ASCII is a waste.
If it were up to HN readers, the entire world would be so ugly and boring.
>Approximately no one outside of HN only wants text emails.
Approximately no one outside of HN even knows that plain text is a thing distinct from HTML. Among those that do, many probably couldn't give an example from their digital experience of a place where user-submitted content must be plain text. (They can navigate those places just fine, though.)
Basically, I don’t think it’s militantly text-only, it’s just shit.
What HN does, i.e., allow comments to contain a couple of carefully-chosen formatting options, is not a realistic option in email whereas because of a history of decades in which email clients could render only plain text, asking email senders to send plain text is a realistic option at least in some situations.
In other words, HN's designers were not restricted to a choice between plain text and full HTML, but in email we basically are (because there is no central authority in charge of email).
So we keep choosing formats that support the subset of features that our current problem needs. Email multipart messages containing a "safe" subset of HTML has solved some problems adequately, and when it doesn't always work, we include a link to a web page, so you can show it in a real browser, or we attach or embed a PDF.
As we cant blame anyone specific, I would have to conclude we did everything wrong and had very poor excuses for it.
A complete embarrassment. I find it rather entertaining but offer no solution.
And why not in text messages? Its 2023 guys.