VOTE ...HTML or Plain Text???

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.....?

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

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.

Usually some one will remind the offender that posting in HTML is a
practice to be discouraged.


Has the time come for HTML in the newsgroup(s)?

I don't think so.


My (change is bad - we fear change) vote is no HTML ... for now.

The change isn't bad, but it's what can be done with HTML that is
potentially bad.


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.

Set your e-mail client to text only. The latest version of Outlook
Express even has that as an option.


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

I have all my mail and newsgroups to read plain text only...for
several reasons. (and I use Outlook express for mail)

1. HTML is a handy way to spread viruses and Trojan horses.
If you set your reader to take HTML for one, it will
do it for all.

2. HTML can be tagged to contact the sender, or even redirect the
opener to a web site.
It's often used in spam to verify the address as valid.
Leaving HTML turned on is almost guaranteed to increase the amount of
spam you receive.
3. HTML takes far more storage space on the news group servers
than does text
4 Many news readers are not capable of reading HTML
5. Many of us have our readers set to not enable HTML

6. It may make it almost impossible for a text to speech
translator to work properly. (for the blind)

..BUT, it can be made to look pretty.

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



Your vote on HTML.....?

Has the time come for HTML in the newsgroup(s)?

No.
I use a fast computer with high speed access in one location,
and an old low memory computer with slow access in another. The memory is
so low I don't even have Netscape installed, but then I don't need it -
it's just for email and newsgroups, and I am happy to keep it that way, so
no thanks, I don't want to receive HTML posts here

--
Tony Roberts (tonyroberts@ remove shaw.ca)
PP-ASEL
VFR-OTT - Night
Cessna 172 C-GICE

"Montblack" wrote in message
.. .
Has the time come for HTML in the newsgroup(s)?

Troll.

(Brien K. Meehan wrote)
Troll.

(First part of my thread opener)
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.


Oh wait, Troll was humor. I love a dry wit.

....Troll?

Droll Brien, very droll. (That's a good thing)

--
Montblack

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

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.
--

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.