----- Original Message ----- > Subject: RE: A plea to post in plain text (was Re: tips digest: May 31, 2005 > From: Rick Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2005 11:04:56 -0400 > X-Message-Number: 2 > > Mike, you make some good points--but the problem is you're asking everyone > to stick to yesterday's standards because it's easier than upgrading!
Rick, I had prepared a point-by-point rebuttal but after reviewing it I realized that "outside of a small circle of friends", few people would really be interested in it. I do think that you may have mischaracterized points regarding my position, so I will try to state some of them more clearly: (1) The digest format of TiPS appears to be broken. It's appears that people may have email clients producing HTML formated versions of their posts which results in two versions of their email appearing in the digest: the original post in plain text and a version the contains the original text plus HTML tags/commands, thus producing a post that takes up more than twice the original plain text message. Other problems also seem to appear, indicating that one's mail client may not be properly set up. This results in increased costs for storage, transmission, and the reader's time and efforts. (2) Rick has said that concerns over storage of such duplicated messages, particularly in terms of cost of storage, processing the message, and the reader's time and effort are either minimal or irrelevant. I disagree. (3) At several points Rick seems to say that I would be opposed to using HTML for websites, apparently as an externsion of my argument on email format, I should argue only for text based websites. I'm not really sure how/why Rick made this extension, particularly since email was created and developed to handle plain text while websites were created and developed to handle/process HTML. A better argument might have been whether websites should be coded to maximize compatibility with a particular browser -- an argument that raged for a number years among website programmers as to whether they should code to be maximally compatible with with Netscape browsers or MicroSoft Internet Explorer's (MSIE) browser (NOTE: MSIE won that battle but because of the security flaws in MSIE many individuals and even institutions are now warning against using MSIE). However, this may be too tangential to the original arugment of whether plain text or text+HTML should be allowed on the list. In any event, it is NOT my position that I am against HTML or XML or the use of any other mark-up language for website. But an email message is not a website. (4) It seems to me that Rick acknowledges that there are problems with the digest format but his solution appears to be (a) get rid of the digest format, or (b) deal with it. I assure Rick that I have been doing "(b)" for a long time. I expect that I will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. As for option "(a)", I'll leave it to some neutral party to argue why the digest format should not be eliminated. (5) There is no point in making this issue into a "jihad", we have enough real ones as well as "phoney" ones (e.g., PC users vs. Mac Users). The issues have been aired and people can decide for themselves where they stand with regard to them. Mike Palij New York University\ [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Rick > > -- > > Rick Adams, MBA, PhD. > Capella University > Grand Canyon University > ITT College of Technology > Jackson Community College > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > "...and the only measure of your worth and your deeds > will be the love you leave behind when you're gone." > -Fred Small J.D., "Everything Possible." > --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: archive@jab.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
