VOTE ...HTML or Plain Text???

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

"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

Plain text if fine. HTML doesn't add anything to a discussion.

-- Jay


__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino/ ! ! !

Checkout http://www.oc-adolfos.com/
for the best Italian food in Ocean City, MD and...
Checkout http://www.brolow.com/ for authentic Blues music on Delmarva

In a previous article, "Montblack" said:
Has the time come for HTML in the newsgroup(s)?

No. Newsgroups are about information, not about fancy formatting.


--
Paul Tomblin, PP-ASEL _|_ Rochester Flying Club web page:
____/___\____ http://www.rochesterflyingclub.com/
___________[o0o]___________

Another reason to use plain text is the possibility of nefarious
java, asp, javascript and other types of HTML-embedded routines. We get
sufficient spam in the newsgroups and too many of them have
these little (and sometimes, not so little!) routines in them.

And they get really nasty at times.

Howdy!

Unless explicitly stated otherwise in the newsgroup charter (at least
for Big Eight newsgroups), messages should be plain text only. HTML
markup adds noise and negative value. This is not really something to
"vote" about. It just *is*. Usenet newsgroups are, in general, a text
only arena. Binary newsgroups are a notable exception.

Email, likewise, is a fundamentally text-only application. Anyone who
insists that they *must* send their content solely in a text/html format
is wasting my time and the time of others who elect to use a text-only
email client (which is often far less susceptible to attack, including
the use of HTML spyware).

yours,
Michael
--
Michael and MJ Houghton | Herveus d'Ormonde and Megan O'Donnelly
| White Wolf and the Phoenix
Bowie, MD, USA | Tablet and Inkle bands, and other stuff
| http://www.radix.net/~herveus/

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? :-)

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. 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.


"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

"Paul Tomblin" wrote in message
...
In a previous article, "Montblack"
said:
Has the time come for HTML in the newsgroup(s)?

No. Newsgroups are about information, not about fancy formatting.



True, except that tabular information such as in the message this thread was
triggered by is more clearly communicated in a true table rather than a
"psuedo-table" created with space or tab characters that get rearranged by
the news reader. If "fancy formatting" enhances the information transfer
then by all means go for it. For example there was is a recent thread on
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.

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

Why is it whenever somebody wants to shovel something at you that's worse
than what you're using already, they always start calling you a Luddite?
Until somebody makes a gui/html news reader that has even 50% of the
features of trn, I'll stick with trn, thanks.

--
Paul Tomblin , not speaking for anybody
"SPARC" is "CRAPS" backwards --Rob Pike