Email Luddism

Here’s a little rant I’ve been meaning to get out for a while.

Whenever the subject of email client support of some particular email feature comes up, someone always posts a comment to the tune of “HTML doesn’t belong in email anyway, all email should be plain text”. What they’re saying is that they outright reject two important features: MIME and progressive enhancement. Given that MIME is what makes attachments (or any arbitrary binary data, attached or not) possible, I guess they can live without them too. It’s the same technology that allows web servers to identify content types, so while we’re painting with his particularly tarry brush, I guess we should remove CSS, javascript and images from HTML pages as well. That should keep them happy. With all those removed, we can all retreat to the comfort of the command line where our needs will be served admirably by the likes of the wonderful (no joke) elinks.

The whole point of the multipart/alternative data type is progressive enhancement. A client is free to select from the alternatives presented and render as best it can, with an option for manual selection (that is, as long as you don’t use Outlook which doesn’t believe in such things). This applies to the common text/plain > text/html combo as much as it would to text/plain > image/jpeg, or perhaps application/pdf > application/vnd.sun.xml.writer. Now if they restricted their comments to text/html only, I might have some sympathy, as that’s just shoddy behaviour on the part of the sender. However, they usually prefer to throw out the baby with the bath water.

To conclude: MIME is a wonderful thing; some people use it badly; get over it.

iPhone icon test generator

I just came across this neat trick for providing custom icons (think favicon.ico, but with a reasonable size, better colour and a proper file format) for web pages for iPhone/iPod touch users. There seemed to be some debate over what exactly the native size is, so I built a test page to test it. The full-size icon image is also displayed on the page, but that’s only there to show what the phone is starting with.
After twiddling with this test for a while, I came to the conclusion that there isn’t a native size – it’s somewhere between 59×59 and 60×60 – though 60×60 is about as close as you can get. This lack of native size is interesting, as it implies that the iPhone UI is using resolution independent rendering, which we know OS X can do.
Bigger sizes do scale more smoothly, but they’re a waste of bandwidth and mean that you lose control of the exact appearance – photographic icons will look very nice, but anything involving single pixels lines will probably suffer badly. If you’re a pixel geek that doesn’t like your images twiddled with and you’ve painstakingly created your icon in Photoshop, you need to know the native size. If anyone finds a perfect image size (which may well not be square), please leave a comment.