VOTE ...HTML or Plain Text???

"Steve House" wrote in message ...

Instead of a manually typed text list
of the pin assignments, wouldn't an image of the schematic embedded in an
HTML message communicate more information more clearly and with less chance
of error? In a case like that it seems to me that "fancy formatting" gives
rise to more information.


You're right, that is another good reason not to use HTML. You start putting
binaries in this non-binary newsgroup and news server admins will start
dropping it. Thanks for pointing that out.

On 23 Jul 2003 08:12:06 -0500, "Steve House"
wrote:


"Paul Tomblin" wrote in message
...
In a previous article, "Montblack"
said:
Has the time come for HTML in the newsgroup(s)?

No. Newsgroups are about information, not about fancy formatting.



True, except that tabular information such as in the message this thread was
triggered by is more clearly communicated in a true table rather than a
"psuedo-table" created with space or tab characters that get rearranged by
the news reader. If "fancy formatting" enhances the information transfer
then by all means go for it. For example there was is a recent thread on
the pin-outs of an Isocom intercom. Instead of a manually typed text list
of the pin assignments, wouldn't an image of the schematic embedded in an
HTML message communicate more information more clearly and with less chance
of error? In a case like that it seems to me that "fancy formatting" gives
rise to more information.


In the above case you put the table up on a web page, or PDF and link
to it. That way the newsgroup users can view the table if they wish.

Just like aircraft photos you want to show...You either post them to
the binaries group with a note here, or you put them up on a page
which you link to in the post.

Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)

Paul Tomblin wrote:

No. Newsgroups are about information, not about fancy formatting.

Information like the picture "drawn" in plain text characters in your
signature? grin

In a previous article, Doug Carter said:
Paul Tomblin wrote:
No. Newsgroups are about information, not about fancy formatting.

Information like the picture "drawn" in plain text characters in your
signature? grin

That was on purpose. Besides, it doesn't use up any more bandwidth than
any other 4 line text signature. Compare that to the embedded graphic
signature elements that so many WebTV lusers were using when WebTV first
infested Usenet.


--
Paul Tomblin , not speaking for anybody
UNIX was half a billion (500000000) seconds old on
Tue Nov 5 00:53:20 1985 GMT (measuring since the time(2) epoch).
-- Andy Tannenbaum

Howdy!

Unless explicitly stated otherwise in the newsgroup charter (at least
for Big Eight newsgroups), messages should be plain text only. HTML
markup adds noise and negative value. This is not really something to
"vote" about. It just *is*. Usenet newsgroups are, in general, a text
only arena. Binary newsgroups are a notable exception.

Email, likewise, is a fundamentally text-only application. Anyone who
insists that they *must* send their content solely in a text/html format
is wasting my time and the time of others who elect to use a text-only
email client (which is often far less susceptible to attack, including
the use of HTML spyware).

yours,
Michael
--
Michael and MJ Houghton | Herveus d'Ormonde and Megan O'Donnelly
| White Wolf and the Phoenix
Bowie, MD, USA | Tablet and Inkle bands, and other stuff
| http://www.radix.net/~herveus/

I use OE on my laptop and Forte Agent on my desktop and just tested both
with the original HTML message that prompted this discussion. With OE got a
real pretty table that was far more readable than the text version of the
message. Using Forte Agent got a table that was virtually identical to the
original text version message except that the HTML version didn't have the
line breaks rearranged by word wrapping. As a result even in Agent the HTML
table was more readable even though the fonts and colours were the same as
the text message. I have to say that I don't understand the emotional
attachment some people have for software that dates to the days when
monitors ran on kerosene instead of electricity, especially when products
that reflect the current state of the art like OE are free or very, very
inexpensive. DOS was nice, OS360 was a great operating system, Hollerith
cards were pretty, but it's time to move on grin. I have a client, a
computer training firm no less, that still uses an early version of Eudora
for their internal email even though MS Office is their desktop standard
otherwise - every time I send an email with an attachment from MS
Office/Outlook I have to remember that they get gibberish unless I force it
to plain text format. While it's true, IMHO, that it's not necessary to
have the very latest whizbang version of everything, it doesn't make sense
to stay 5 or more years behind the curve either.


"Montblack" wrote in message
.. .
I was surprised by the acceptance of an HTML post in another thread. I,
for
one, could read the HTML fine. Others said the same thing.

Has the time come for HTML in the newsgroup(s)?

My (change is bad - we fear change) vote is no HTML ... for now.

I'm being fuddy-duddy with my reason: I get bombarded with "wow" media
all
day. It's a nice change of pace to read the ol' newsgroups in a plain text
format.

I have no clue what technical problems HTML causes for some other
newsgroup
participants.

Your vote on HTML.....?

--
Montblack

In a previous article, "Steve House" said:
to plain text format. While it's true, IMHO, that it's not necessary to
have the very latest whizbang version of everything, it doesn't make sense
to stay 5 or more years behind the curve either.

Why is it whenever somebody wants to shovel something at you that's worse
than what you're using already, they always start calling you a Luddite?
Until somebody makes a gui/html news reader that has even 50% of the
features of trn, I'll stick with trn, thanks.

--
Paul Tomblin , not speaking for anybody
"SPARC" is "CRAPS" backwards --Rob Pike

On 23 Jul 2003 08:01:19 -0500, "Steve House"
wrote:

I use OE on my laptop and Forte Agent on my desktop and just tested both
with the original HTML message that prompted this discussion. With OE got a

I use the same apps and both are set to plain text only if for no
other reason than safety.


snip


Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)

On 23 Jul 2003 08:01:19 -0500, "Steve House"
wrote:

I use OE on my laptop and Forte Agent on my desktop and just tested both
with the original HTML message that prompted this discussion. With OE got a
real pretty table that was far more readable than the text version of the
message. Using Forte Agent got a table that was virtually identical to the
original text version message except that the HTML version didn't have the
line breaks rearranged by word wrapping. As a result even in Agent the HTML
table was more readable even though the fonts and colours were the same as
the text message. I have to say that I don't understand the emotional
attachment some people have for software that dates to the days when
monitors ran on kerosene instead of electricity, especially when products
that reflect the current state of the art like OE are free or very, very
inexpensive.

It's not an emotional attachment. It's the knowledge of what some one
can do to your computer through an HTML enabled e-mail, or news
reader.

DOS was nice, OS360 was a great operating system, Hollerith
cards were pretty, but it's time to move on grin. I have a client, a
computer training firm no less, that still uses an early version of Eudora
for their internal email even though MS Office is their desktop standard
otherwise - every time I send an email with an attachment from MS
Office/Outlook I have to remember that they get gibberish unless I force it
to plain text format. While it's true, IMHO, that it's not necessary to
have the very latest whizbang version of everything, it doesn't make sense
to stay 5 or more years behind the curve either.

In their case they are using common sense...whether they realize it or
not.

The problems (that's plural) come from all the avenues the nice and
handy new stuff opens into your computer for those who wish to exploit
it, or you.

Those old text only news readers are far safer than OE, or Outlook
with HTML enabled.

I use Agent (the full version) for news groups and OE for mail (with
HTML and the other *stuff* turned off, so it's a straight text reader.
I much prefer OE to the supposedly more superior Outlook.

All 4 systems here run XP Pro and Office XP. All use Netscape 7.1 (or
Mozilla) for browsing.

I don't open attachments from any one with out an explanation as to
what is attached and a confirmation. (IE..Did you send this to me?)

If I receive a news letter that is in HTML and I want to read it in
HTML, I can enable HTML temporarily which is a quick and simple
operation.

Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)


"Montblack" wrote in message
. ..
I was surprised by the acceptance of an HTML post in another thread. I,
for
one, could read the HTML fine. Others said the same thing.

Has the time come for HTML in the newsgroup(s)?

My (change is bad - we fear change) vote is no HTML ... for now.

I'm being fuddy-duddy with my reason: I get bombarded with "wow" media
all
day. It's a nice change of pace to read the ol' newsgroups in a plain text
format.

I have no clue what technical problems HTML causes for some other
newsgroup
participants.

Your vote on HTML.....?

--
Montblack

Roger Halstead wrote in message
...
[snip]

Those old text only news readers are far safer than OE, or Outlook
with HTML enabled.

I use Agent (the full version) for news groups and OE for mail (with
HTML and the other *stuff* turned off, so it's a straight text reader.
I much prefer OE to the supposedly more superior Outlook.


How DO you turn off HTML etc. in OE for reading? I looked for a while last
night and couldn't find it...

Thanks!
John Clonts
Temple, Texas