VOTE ...HTML or Plain Text???

My vote is for HTML. I have no problem with text only news groups or I
wouldn't read this one but I do find some really great groups that allow
HTML on Yahoo.
--
Have a good day and stay out of the trees!
See ya on Sport Aircraft group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sport_Aircraft/


Private Pilot in 10 days
http://www.perfectplanes.com

Join "The Ultralight & Experimental Aircraft SiteRing"
http://pub27.bravenet.com/sitering/a...num=2286862090

"Montblack" wrote ...
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 article , "Kiwi Jet Jock"
wrote:

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

Your vote on HTML.....?

And whilst on the subject, I wish more folks would TOP POST for simple
replies.

simple reply to what?

and would it be too much effort to trim your "simple" reply?

--
Bob Noel

On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 23:06:24 -0700, Peter Duniho wrote:

My vote is for HTML.

Your vote doesn't count, since you top-post and don't trim any of the quoted
text.


that's what I just read in another group re top-posting:

||| Posting at the top because that's where the cursor happened to be
||| is like ****ting in your pants because that's where your asshole
||| happened to be.

#m
--
http://www.usawatch.org/ http://www.alternet.org/

John Gilmo I was ejected from a plane for wearing
"Suspected Terrorist" button http://www.politechbot.com/p-04973.html

"Kiwi Jet Jock" wrote in message
...
And whilst on the subject, I wish more folks would TOP POST for simple
replies.

And I wish people would stop leaving quoted the entire text of the message
to which they are replying.

But we don't always get what we want, do we?

How about posting at the top because That's where you start reading?
When you reply, that reply is directed at someone who is probably
already familiar with the conversation. If you post at the top, they
don't have to scroll past a mountain of garbage to get to what you are
trying to say.

And this anti-html thing is just microsoft bashing in my opinion. If
Agent was the most popular newsreader that supported html, we probably
wouldn't even be having this discussion. Html is more pleasing to the
eye than plain text and that's about all the reason you need to use it.
If your newsreader doesn't support html or you simply refuse to
acknowledge that you are on a public network and ignore security, then
you should probably get with the program.

*** Sent via http://www.automationtools.com ***
Add a newsgroup interface to your website today.

In a previous article, Joe Bleaux said:
already familiar with the conversation. If you post at the top, they
don't have to scroll past a mountain of garbage to get to what you are
trying to say.

People who bottom post don't leave "a mountain of garbage", they trim
their quoted material to act as a reminder of what they're talking about
to to have just the point they are talking about there in a conversational
manner.

wouldn't even be having this discussion. Html is more pleasing to the
eye than plain text and that's about all the reason you need to use it.

I guess it all depends on whether you post to impart information, or to
create art. I post to impart information, and you do that with your
words, not with pretty colours and fonts.

--
Paul Tomblin , not speaking for anybody
The Borg assimilated my race & all I got was this T-shirt.

Yahoo groups aren't USENET. When you post a message on USENET it has to sit
on MANY servers not just Yahoo's and the groups subscribers' mail servers.
There is a time and a place for HTML and the time is when you can't get the
point across any other way and the place is on web sites and if you must
personal e-mail.

This message is ~1k in size. The same message, if I were to send it in HTML
would be ~3k.

Do the math.




"Gilan" wrote in message
...
My vote is for HTML. I have no problem with text only news groups or I
wouldn't read this one but I do find some really great groups that allow
HTML on Yahoo.
--

On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 22:20:40 -0500, Doug Carter
wrote:

John T wrote:

Disabling HTML in your email client prevents this from happening since none
of the HTML tags - like IMG - are interpreted.

Or disable image loading.

Better to disable HTML.
With HTML the system can run any number of apps and Macros without
user intervention. Couple that with a virus or worm that normally
tricks the user into running it and you end up with an "auto run"
virus or worm just by highlighting the header to read the message.

OTOH it can send you to a malicious site which can mess with your
computer. It can upload and download files as well.

So unless you take precautions (disabling images, java, macros, and
links) reading messages in HTML can be very hazardous to your
computers health.

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

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)

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