Mark wrote:
>
> Gervase Markham wrote:
>
> >>Now, as for newsgroup posts, that's a different thing, and I understand
> >>that I probably should send in text format. How much of an issue is that
> >>these days?
> >
> > Still a big one.
>
> Which prompts the question . . . why is it still, or should it be? I
> can understand, back in the days of BBS popularity, where it would be a
> financial burden on the SYSOP to send packets of larger size than they
> needed to be. But today, many years later, why the resistance to change,
> when (at least in my opinion) HTML makes for a more pleasing page to
> read. Certainly, web browers/sites are not plain text based, so why then
> should messages be so? I'm playing devil's advocate here, but I'm still
> curious about it.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Mark
Because there are still people on per-minute dial-ups, or
pay-per-connection telcos. Quite a LOT of people, in fact.
Also, there are a lot of people who use text only mail/news clients that
will puke out the ugliest looking page you've ever seen. And don't
forget the few well known security issues that people simply don't want
to deal with - which is why some people use text only mail/news clients.
And there's also the accessibility considerations.
There's other stuff that I'm not thinking of to take into consideration,
so the above is only a partial sample.
Justin H.
--
"As most lawyers, I'm human."
-Robert Mardian
