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.

No HTML. Plain text works with any system.

Big John

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 23:15:55 -0500, "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.....?

Doug

You forgot the Radio Range and Light Lines G

Big John


On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 07:35:20 -0500, Doug Carter
wrote:

Montblack wrote:

Your vote on HTML.....?

I vote YES some trepidation and with the hope that folks with use is
sparingly (for tables and such). Some will foolishly attempt to prevail
in a discussion with form rather than content but suffering fools is a
hazard of usenet anyway.

HTML does take more bandwidth, but so does cross posting... Do you
suppose there is any correlation between NO voters and those how fight
for the retention of NDB's? :-)

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

"Teacherjh" wrote in message
...
I vote plain text.

It is a universal format.

I don't think that's a sound reason. Used in the past it would have stranded
us with the 5-bit teletype code, or the 7-bit ASCII code, or the 7-bit ISO
code, or... Sometimes the new needs to put pressure on the old. The greatest
strength of MIME was its careful attention to backward compatibility with
non-MIME-aware software; this also was a great weakness because it provided
no pressure to upgrade.

HTML puts the onus on the reader to have certain
software, for which they recieve little value in return (most HTML
formatting
is worthless, and much is less than worthless).

Agreed with that last reason.

-- David Brooks