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.
Believe it or not, there are many people out there reading news and mail
with text-mode programs like mutt, elm, slrn, tin. In fact I myself
prefer a professional newsreader like slrn over Netscape any time. These
programs only display plain text, but are much much better newsreaders
than Netscape.
HTML is for the WWW, not for usenet or mail. I'm still waiting for a
HTML posting / mail where HTML adds anything significant to the content
of a message. HTML is bloat when it comes to mail/news. Simple plain
text is much better to read than HTML. Would you like to receive a snail
mail letter written in different colors, different font sizes, different
background pictures? Would it enhance your reading experience? Leave
HTML to the WWW where it belongs.
- Holger
