"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)?

Boy, you're askin' for it.

I'll bite...

IMHO, nothing inherent wrong with HTML. However, it should be avoided in
almost every case, simply because of the lack of added value. Even in the
post that started your question, the information could have just as easily
been presented in plain text. The fact that it *wasn't* doesn't mean it
couldn't have been, nor that it shouldn't have been.

A couple of big reasons why not to use HTML unless it really adds something:
as someone else pointed out, for many people, it makes the post hard to
read. Believe it or not, not everyone uses Outlook Express or one of the
other HTML-aware newsreaders. It only SEEMS like they do. Another reason
is simple efficiency. Bandwidth should be conserved at all times, just as
all other resources should be conserved. When you need the extra bandwidth
to convey something that's otherwise impossible to convey, then by all
means, use HTML. But otherwise, use plain text.

I realize that in this day and age of the daily-driver 12 mpg SUV, lots of
people will disagree. They are the same people that think that as long as
someone else is wasting more than they are, they don't need to conserve.
Water, gas, electricity, paper, and yes, even bandwidth. Just because
someone else uses more than you do, that doesn't mean you shouldn't try to
minimize your own use, avoiding wasteful use of the resource.

Pete