VOTE ...HTML or Plain Text???

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
...
HTML doesn't recognize spaces except for one. Put in ten and you
still get one. The &nbsp is required in HTML if you want to space
something over more than one space.

Your defense of OE is well-intentioned, but not exactly accurate. The
presence of the nbsp tags happens even when NO spaces have been specified in
the original text, or perhaps only one. They are NOT just showing up to try
to match what the user entered.

I have seen OE and Front Page add nbsp to my HTML plenty of times to know
for a fact that it's not just trying to obey my commands. It's doing it
arbitrarily.

Pete

"Roger Halstead" wrote in message
...
For one, It makes it far easier to read for those who use text to
audio converters.

You need a smarter text to audio converter.

Unless the newsgroup is rec.aviation.blind-pilots, I see no reason that the
preferred standard should be abandonded just for a small number of people
who may have special needs.

Pete

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

Steve House wrote:
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.

Well, I'm emotionally attached to not enabling unnecessary security
holes for no great benefit.

OE is a never-ending security hole. Our IT people beg us not to use
it.

Sydney

On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 08:31:34 -0500, "John Clonts"
wrote in Message-Id:
:

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

Right. When you read the HTML e-mail message, Outlook retrieves data
from the web. That's the last thing I want my e-mail client doing. I
much prefer to retain control over my web activity rather than
relinquishing control to Mr. Gates.


--

Irrational beliefs ultimately lead to irrational acts.
-- Larry Dighera,

On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 08:31:34 -0500, "John Clonts"
wrote:


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

Tools, Options, Read, Read all messages in plain text.

On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 21:52:44 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
wrote:

"Roger Halstead" wrote in message
.. .
HTML doesn't recognize spaces except for one. Put in ten and you
still get one. The &nbsp is required in HTML if you want to space
something over more than one space.

Your defense of OE is well-intentioned, but not exactly accurate. The

It's not my intention to defend any of the programs. It's just the
%nbsp is added by virtually all WYSIWYG HTML editors.

presence of the nbsp tags happens even when NO spaces have been specified in
the original text, or perhaps only one. They are NOT just showing up to try
to match what the user entered.

I have seen OE and Front Page add nbsp to my HTML plenty of times to know
for a fact that it's not just trying to obey my commands. It's doing it
arbitrarily.

They don't really do it arbitrarily. They are added at the beginning
of paragraphs and lines where a hard return has been used and for
other obscure reasons. They do follow rules to enter the darn things,
but whether they do it arbitrarily of following rules the characters
are still a nuisance. It's just that they are not just specific to
Outlook and OE.

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

Pete

I strongly vote: NO on HTML.

For many reasons: People could easily include / embed ads. Browser
incompatibility / accessibility issues for those with lesser eyesight
/ large fonts by default (usurped by the html post).



As for top-posting: YES.

I think it's actually useful. You should post a response related to
the relevant thread of discussion. I'm sick of reading thru 10posts
about a flame or random thing, just to get back to the original thread
of discussion.

"Sydney Hoeltzli" wrote in message
...
OE is a never-ending security hole. Our IT people beg us not to use
it.

Every program you use is a potentially never-ending security hole, and those
that intentionally receive data from the Internet are especially so. If
your IT people are so concerned about network security, they ought not to
allow you to use ANY software that accepts data from the Internet.

I'm as against HTML in Usenet newsgroups as much as the next guy, but it has
nothing to do with a belief that not using HTML will ensure my security.

Pete