"T Beck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If we argue that people are evolving the way e-mail is handled, and > adding entire new feature sets to something which has been around > since the earliest days of the internet, then that's perfectly > feasable. HTML itself has grown. We've also added Javascript and > Shockwave.
They are not additions to HTML, like PNG is no addition to HTML, or wav, mp3, etc. > The websites of today don't even resemble the websites of > 10 years ago, Depends a lot on what site you visit. You can make a website of 10 years ago look modern with roughly the same HTML of 10 years ago, and a style sheet. (E.g. visit: http://johnbokma.com/ and turn off the stylesheet. And there are way better examples) > e-mail of today only remotely resembles the original, so Because there is no real alternative to email? If there was, email would have died, at least for me, long ago. > the argument that usenet should never change seems a little > heavy-handed and anachronistic. No, simple since there *are* alternatives: web based message boards. Those alternatives *do* support HTML formatting (often the subset mentioned earlier). However, Usenet is a stranger to most people on the Internet, even with Usenet access, and hence, there is no real reason to see it changed into something that is "available" for years and years to more people: www. -- John Small Perl scripts: http://johnbokma.com/perl/ Perl programmer available: http://castleamber.com/ Happy Customers: http://castleamber.com/testimonials.html -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
