At 01:57 PM 1/23/99 -0500, Dan Steinberg wrote:
>> Show me a mailing list where postng in only HTML is accepted and I'll believe you.
>
>I'm on about 40 of them (about 300 messages/day on the aggregate).
>Surprisingly, there are no dinosaurs on them. Seems like doctors,
>lawyers, speedskaters, cross-country skiers, LAN managers, year-2000
>practitioners, etc. have no trouble with HTML. I repeat my offer to
>write you a filter.
Perhaps what you are saying it true, I don't know. But I'm on
a lot more lists than you and have noticed unversal
rejection of posting HTML as well as ascii. Posting HTML
only is treated even less kindly.
Let's cut to the quick shall we ? Dave screwed up and posted
HTML only. Instead of saying "oops, I made a mistake" he then
claimed anybody who couldnt handle this mistake was living in
the past, despite this is how the list has been runsince day 1.
I can live with html atachments and all the other crud
prevelant on mailing lists these days, like vcard attachments
and whatever thoe .p7s files Jeff Williams keeps sending
They're annoying, but you havn't seen me complain.
But HTML only, *without warning* simply does not work
for people who have been seccessfully using their current
mail readers so far.
What makes this trurly ironic is Dave's rejection of
Farebers recent sugestion to use the mbone for this
stuff - in that discussion Crocker asserted that
the lowest common denominator should be used.
This striked me as a little hypocritical.
>> Find me even 1% of all interent mailing lists that you won't get yelled
>> at for posting HTML *as well* and I'l believe you.
>
>Define "yelled at". If it means Richard and one or two others
>complain, I don't buy it. I'd set the bar at 25%. If 25% of a group
>has a problem, that would be significant (maybe even 20%). Until you
>can demonstrate that a significant number of listmembers are disturbed
>by HTML or MIME attachements, I don't buy your argument. Are you
>willing to annoy the listmembers with a survey just to prove my
>point? Go ahead, ask them how many cannot support HTML in their
>normal mail configuration?
None of this is the point. The IFWP list has, since it's inception
been ascii. It is not suddenly acceptible to post only HTML
because Dave Crocker screwed up his Eudora settings.
You get consensus that HTML only is what the IFWP list should
be doing and I will gladly set up a special Eudora client just
for this list. But to suddenly declare out of the blue it's
unilaterally acceptible is nonsense.
--
"That's why there is a Protocol SO. To decide what the next
number after 16 is." - Dixon (tinc)
__________________________________________________
To receive the digest version instead, send a
blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___END____________________________________________
