VOTE ...HTML or Plain Text???

In a previous article, "Steve House" said:
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.

And an even better solution would be to stick it on a web site somewhere
and post a link to it. That way the 5 or 6 people who are interested can
see it the way you intended it, and the tens of thousands of news servers
out there don't have to cart around this binary that so few people want to
see.


--
Paul Tomblin , not speaking for anybody
"Very sad life. Probably have very sad death. But at least there is
symmetry. Go, Go, Zathrus take care."

blanche cohen wrote:

Another reason to use plain text is the possibility of nefarious
java, asp, javascript and other types of HTML-embedded routines.

While that might be a good reason to set things up so that nobody could
post HTML to the newsgroups, it is hardly a reason for a poster to refrain
from using it. No spammer is going to be able to sneak an embedded routine
into one of Montblack's posts, and having all the usual posters refrain
from using HTML will not stop the spammer or vandal who wants to post
such a routine.

George Patterson
The optimist feels that we live in the best of all possible worlds. The
pessimist is afraid that he's correct.
James Branch Cavel

Montblack ) wrote:

Your vote on HTML.....?

NO. Text is the ticket.

My newsreader has HTML disabled, just to be safe.

--
Peter

In a previous article, "G.R. Patterson III" said:
blanche cohen wrote:

Another reason to use plain text is the possibility of nefarious
java, asp, javascript and other types of HTML-embedded routines.

While that might be a good reason to set things up so that nobody could
post HTML to the newsgroups, it is hardly a reason for a poster to refrain
from using it. No spammer is going to be able to sneak an embedded routine

And it's an EXTREMELY good reason for a person to not use an HTML-aware
newsreader. And since most people post because they want other people to
read it, and smart people are reading with plain text newsreaders, it
would make sense to post in plain text.


--
Paul Tomblin , not speaking for anybody
And on the seventh day, He exited from append mode.

Montblack wrote:
Your vote on HTML.....?

Plain text for 99% of normal postings;
very occasional HTML for a diagram or table OK.

MikeM

I like HTML when it adds something. Bolding and itallics don't really add
much so if the message is all text, just leave it plain text.

But a table looks much better in HTML. I hate having to recreate column
aligments, etc. Same thing with diagrams. I hate when people attempt to
use characters for arrows and lines.

jerry

"John T" wrote in message
ws.com...
"Montblack" wrote in message


Your vote on HTML.....?

"Nay."

Even though I use Outlook Express, I set it to read all messages (even
email) as plain text. Why?
1) Spammers can use the simple loading of a graphic from an HTML-formatted
message to validate your email address.

I assume you're referring to a web bug, which is an small invisible graphic
(for example a 1x1 white square). I'm not disagreeing with the overall
objection, but I don't think this is accurate. It is true in the case of
mail that is sent to you, but I can't see how it can be done on usenet.
That's unless:
- web bugs are smarter than me, which is entirely possible
- your newsreader still indulges in the bad habit of sending your email
address in the header of HTTP requests

Web bugs can identify the machine that they are loaded from (or at least the
proxy that you go through), so depending on your connection it may still be
useful information.

2) Plain text is just fine by me unless I'm looking at a web page.

Me too.

-- David Brooks

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

"David Brooks" wrote in message


I assume you're referring to a web bug.... I'm not disagreeing with
the overall objection, but I don't think this is accurate.

Yes, that's what I was referring to and its use in spam email (not USENET
posts where it is not nearly as effective) is one of the main reasons I set
OE to use plain text. The fact that I get to read my USENET messages in
plain text, too, is just a fringe benefit.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/tknoFlyer
__________

Paul Tomblin wrote:

And it's an EXTREMELY good reason for a person to not use an HTML-aware
newsreader.

Or perhaps an HTML aware reader that doesn't respond to ActiveX, Java or
scripting but still displays tables that are easy to read.

A (rhetorical) poll: how many users know whether or not their
newsreader is open to ActiveX, Java or scripting at this instant?