Christopher Jahn wrote:
> And it came to pass that Cevpx wrote:
>
>>Attributed Meowbot wrote:
>>
>>>Adam James Fitzpatrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>And often enough the poster hasn't written anything that
>>>>actually *requires* HTML markup - it's just plain text
>>>>anyway.
>>>>
>>>I even see some posters go to great lengths to make their
>>>HTML look like plain text, including monospaced type and
>>>80-column lines (no, not <pre>, but an incredible
>>>simulation).
>>
>>Probably in an attempt to appease the plain-text pussies. ;)
>>
>>>OTOH, I've seen a few times where HTML actually did improve
>>>the presentation. These have all been longish, dense text
>>>-- the examples I recall have all been CFPs, abstracts or
>>>legal notices. For discussion groups, the composition
>>>software tends to toss in way too many gratuiutous
>>>elements.
>>
>>Presentation is what HTML is all about. How can anyone not
>>want to have a tool that has the potential to augment their
>>attempts at communication?
>>
>>How many web sites do you see in plain-text?
>
> I have no problems with Websites using HTML.
>
> But I have NEVER seen a newsgroup post that read better because
> it was in HTML. All it did was cause my download time to
> STREEETCH way long.
I haven't either but you have to admit it is possible. ;)
> This medium is all about the content, not the presentation.
> Websites are for whistles, bells, and dancing flowers.
Sorry to disagree but, this medium is all about fun.
"There are three things that have meaning for life. They are the
motivational factors for everything in your life... for anything that
you do or any living thing does: The first is survival, the second is
social order, and the third is entertainment. Everything in life
progresses in that order. And there is nothing after entertainment."
Linus Torvalds - From his book: "Just For FUN"
http://www.linux.org/books/FEATURE_0066620724.html
Note: Newsgroup alt.clubs.just-for-fun added. HTML posts are fine in
that ng.
>>We have all heard the pussy that goes by the name Fluffy
>>expound the scripture that usenet is not the web... ad
>>nauseam... etc., etc. Are we talking about bandwidth here?
>>Do we still have people connecting at 300 bps?
>
> Yes. At least, a suprising number are connecting at 9600.
> Cellphones, beepers, and other "interenet appliances" do connect
> at very low speeds. And many schools and library systems
> (especially in third world locations) connect at 9600 OR LESS.
This reminds me of my parents going on and on about all those starving
people in foreign countries when I didn't eat everything on my plate.
> Because of this, many sysadmins in these areas simply block HTML
> email and newsgroup messages outright.
I doubt any sysadmin is blocking HTML email. Please. It's getting
deep. There are a few news servers blocking HTML but... email... are
you serious?
> And even in the rest of the world, many folks pay:
> by the minute for the phone connection
> By the minute for the INTERNET connection
> and by the kilobyte for the download.
>
> Adding a flowered background or six kind of fonts in seven
> colors just doesn't seem to be a compelling argument for
> screwing these people.
Screw who?
