On Fri, 13 Jun 2003 23:19:16 GMT, Repeating Decimal
wrote:




It is easier to shout with HTML. By the way, what is wrong with using HTML.
What complaint I have with it is that posters using it have font sizes to
small. You cannot say that about my post.


Nothing is wrong with using HTML in its proper place -
creating a webpage.

This newsgroup is a part of Usenet, however, which is a
plain-text media.

Many of us use plain-text news programs and don't see HTML
posts, or see all the HTML codes.

The point of using plain text is that EVERYONE can read it:
those who use Macs, those who use plain-text newsreaders,
people using Unix or Linux machines, people using IBM
mainframes, people using Windows (whatever version), people
on WebTv, people still using DOS....whatever. I, for
instance, used to read newsgroups during my lunch hour at
work: I used Pine on a Unix machine. No HTML there.

Plain text also occupies vastly less space on a drive, and
takes less bandwidth to transmit.

Pat

Repeating Decimal wondered in message
...
Turn off your HTML please.

[..] what is wrong with using HTML. [..]

Everything in a text-only newsgroup.

Many ISPs (and the newsservers they use) filter HTML messages so they aren't
displayed in text-only 'groups. Many people that use USENET, still use
'readers that will display all the commands that make those fonts/colors/et
al "different," making your message difficult (if not impossible) to read.
Even more people will immediately filter/killfile you for posting HTML-laden
messages in a text-only group.

It's a simple fix, though. If you want the most people to read your
response -- and comment on the content rather than the display -- then use
plain text when appropriate.

In OE, you can find the setting under the main menu item, Tools|Options|Send
(Newsgroups) or you can change each message prior to sending it.

The Ranger

"Pat Meadows" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 13 Jun 2003 23:19:16 GMT, Repeating Decimal
wrote:




It is easier to shout with HTML. By the way, what is wrong with using
HTML.
What complaint I have with it is that posters using it have font sizes to
small. You cannot say that about my post.


Nothing is wrong with using HTML in its proper place -
creating a webpage.

This newsgroup is a part of Usenet, however, which is a
plain-text media.

HTML is plain text. Take a look at it.


Many of us use plain-text news programs and don't see HTML
posts, or see all the HTML codes.

Better argument than the rest stated here.


The point of using plain text is that EVERYONE can read it:
those who use Macs,

Macs can't understand HTML? How do their Webbrowsers work?

those who use plain-text newsreaders,
people using Unix or Linux machines,

Linux and Unix can't understand HTML? How do their Webbrowsers work?

people using IBM
mainframes, people using Windows (whatever version), people
on WebTv, people still using DOS....whatever. I, for
instance, used to read newsgroups during my lunch hour at
work: I used Pine on a Unix machine. No HTML there.

HTML is only text, and everything on any computer is binary at the most
basic level. Nothing magical about HTML.


Plain text also occupies vastly less space on a drive, and
takes less bandwidth to transmit.

True.


Pat

On Sat, 14 Jun 2003 17:04:32 GMT, "FDR"
wrote in rec.gardens.edible:

HTML is plain text. Take a look at it.

Substitute "ASCII text" wherever the sender has said "plain text".

ASCII means "American Standard Code for Information Interchange". Emphasis on
the word "Standard". HTML is not standard, the text that is visible to you is
not "plain text" and is not visible to everyone. Don't blame us because the
designers of usenet did not want prettiness and oodles of excess bytes on their
system at the expense of clarity of communication and greatly increasing the
storage requirements on server.
--
Gardening Zones
Canada Zone 5a
United States Zone 3a
Near Ottawa, Ontario

Xref: kermit rec.gardens.edible:57021


"Jim Carter" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 14 Jun 2003 17:04:32 GMT, "FDR"

wrote in rec.gardens.edible:

HTML is plain text. Take a look at it.

Substitute "ASCII text" wherever the sender has said "plain text".

ASCII means "American Standard Code for Information Interchange".
Emphasis on
the word "Standard". HTML is not standard, the text that is visible to
you is
not "plain text" and is not visible to everyone.

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

Don't blame us because the
designers of usenet did not want prettiness and oodles of excess bytes on
their
system at the expense of clarity of communication and greatly increasing
the
storage requirements on server.

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

What about binary groups?

--
Gardening Zones
Canada Zone 5a
United States Zone 3a
Near Ottawa, Ontario

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

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. None of those things are encouraged in this newsgroup and binary is
deleted by many of the servers, including the one I am using. Have you seen any
here?

HTML is a language. That is what the "L" in HTML means. Not all newsreaders
are designed to translate that language into something that displays properly.
It might be possible to write a program that would make it display somewhat
properly on older machines, but why should they? There is no need to write such
a program because a standard was developed and was followed, until HTML came
along in news readers. HTML does not follow the usenet standard. The older
machines follow a standard, the same standard that usenet uses. ADM-3A
terminals are still in use on some business machines, so there is a lot of old
stuff in use.

What would be your reaction if some people advocated use of EBCDIC on usenet
rather than ASCII? I am sure IBM would thank you. What if others wanted to use
Corel WordPerfect or Microsoft Word control codes for formatting messages on
usenet? The writing is still "just text".
--
Gardening Zones
Canada Zone 5a
United States Zone 3a
Near Ottawa, Ontario

"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.

On Sat, 14 Jun 2003 21:28:07 GMT, "FDR"
wrote in rec.gardens.edible:

What would you do?


I would ignore the lamer, which is what I intend to do now that the clouds have
parted and I see sunlight for the first time in days.
--
Gardening Zones
Canada Zone 5a
United States Zone 3a
Near Ottawa, Ontario

"Repeating Decimal" wrote in message
...
in article , Charlie at
wrote on 6/13/03 2:33 PM:

I've said it before, I'll say it again..
SPAM SPAM SPAM AND MORE
SPAM. SHAM!

Turn off your HTML please.

Charlie.


It is easier to shout with HTML. By the way, what is wrong with using
HTML.
What complaint I have with it is that posters using it have font sizes to
small. You cannot say that about my post.

Bill

No, but to those that don't have newsreaders setup to read HTML, your post
looks like this:

HTML
HEAD
TITLE I've said it before, I'll say it again../TITLE
/HEAD
BODY
in article , Jackson Warren a=
t wrote on 6/13/03 1:14 PM:BR
<snip>BR
H1SPAM SPAM SPAM AND MOREBR
SPAM. SHAM!/H1
/BODY
/HTML