Christopher Jahn wrote:
> And it came to pass that Cevpx wrote:
>>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.
>
> But you are wrong. It is ALSO about fun, but it is PRIMARILY
> about information.
>
>>"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
>
> Sorry - Mr. Torvalds does not define Usenet. Nor is he the Final
> Authority on How To Live Life.
>
> Sure, it's a good philosophy. So is "do no harm".
>
>>Note: Newsgroup alt.clubs.just-for-fun added. HTML posts
>>are fine in that ng.
>
> Sure - I accept that - in a group that that's what they do.
I'm not advocating posting HTML in a newsgroup where the regulars don't
want it. OTOH, I think software developers need to understand that this
new generation getting hooked up to the internet just won't understand
why a news readers doesn't have this capability. There are places on
Usenet where this is acceptable and there are news servers not connected
to Usenet that don't have a problem with HTML. IOW, Usenet is not the
only game in town and it shouldn't limit what a news/email client should
be capable of.
> But when you go to a groups where DISCUSSION is taking place,
> it's not necessary, and there are drawbacks.
HTML formatting helps DISCUSSION, what is your point? ;)
>>>>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.
>
> There are people starving around the world. And there are
> people whose access is limited. Why make it even harder for
> them?
I can't believe this; we're saying HTML is the cause of world hunger
now. This is getting good. Do you also think NASA should stop all
spending on space exploration until every hungry mouth is fed?
>>>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?
>
> I am absolutely serious. I know people in Brazil and Argentina
> whose ISP's do not carry HTML because of the added costs.
That sucks, man.
>>>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?
>
> The people who have to pay to download HTML code on top of the
> actual message content. When you post HTML, their connection is
> longer, which they pay for. It's real money. Cha-ching!
>
> Instead of paying, say, $.75 cents to download plaintext email
> and newsgroups for offline reading, they end up paying $1.25.
> It adds up, when you figure these costs must be paid every
> single time they access the internet and Usenet.
Screw you. I know what you're up to now. Next you're going to be
asking for donations to help pay for all the people starving because of
HTML email being sent to them. It's not my damn fault! Bill did it.
