"Jim Carter" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 14 Jun 2003 19:06:58 GMT, "FDR"

wrote in rec.gardens.edible:

Have you ever looked at HTML code? It's just text.

Will this "just text" display properly on my TRS-80 Model I or Model IV?

Now I had one of those, but that was circa 1982. I don't know of anyone
that still uses them. Maybe they have a 150 baud modem to go with it too.

It's silly to bring up antiquated technology as a defense for fighting HTML
code.


I used
to read newsgroups on the IV when it was in "dumb terminal" mode. Would
any of
this "just text" you speak of display properly on it or on an old
Commodore Pet
or an old Apple or would it display as garbage?

If you can't read it then you either A) get a machine that can or B) ignore
it.

Man, what if someone like you got all ****y about word processing files
that had graphics and he couldn't read them on his XYWrtite program from
1985?

HTML in newsgroups looks like
garbage to many of us, just as it would on those old machines I mentioned.


Yes, the masses like you who use machines from the early 80's.

What about ASCII art? What about 50 line SIG's?

What about binary groups?

What about them? In newsgroups where such things are encouraged there is
no
problem and all text characters conform to the ASCII standard, anyway;
HTML does
not.

You wrote: "Don't blame us because the
designers of usenet did not want prettiness and oodles of excess bytes on
their
system"

Those binaries take up a lot of space. So which is your argument? Memory
hogs or ASCII standards?

HTML is a language.

No, really?


What would be your reaction if some people advocated use of EBCDIC on
usenet
rather than ASCII?

Either A) Learn it B) Get a newsreader that would C) Ignore the messages.

What would you do?

A) Bring up computers from the early 80's
B) Complain about memory size
C) Tell people not to do it because it wasn't standard EBCDIC.