On 8/19/01 4:51 PM, "Philip Busey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The fact that plain text even survives as a "relic" from 1970 is a testimony
> to the fact that it is still readable, as it will be 100 years from now.
This part I agree with.
> Not so the fancy text.
This part, however, I can't. If you honestly think that HTML won't be
readable, or as readable, as plain text, given how endemic the form has
become, then I think you need to think it through again.
And -- heck -- what's "plain text", anyway? What we call "plain text" works
fine for US english and to a lesser extent with western european languages,
but fails miserably for non-roman languages and asian languages. So are we
calling "plain text" straight 7 bit ascii? If so, how do you reconcile all
of people who've been disenfranchised from using it? After all, the net
isn't a techie enclave of US and english-native nerds in universities any
more.
Or are you expanding plain text to include unicode or some other encoding
format? If so, it's not plain text any more.
> I would not justify fancy text for e-mail just because we use it for paper
> correspondence.
In your opinion. This is a generational thing -- and in the paragraph I
edited out, you prove which generation you belong to. And it includes the
assumed "it was good enough for me, it's good enough for them".
Unfortunately, when you talk to "them", they tend to disagree.
This whole discussion mirrors one I've seen elsewhere -- ham radio. Plain
text is the morse code of the internet, and the parallels are almost
perfect. Early on -- that was it. You talked via morse code. Later, other
technologies showed up, but everyone was required to know morse code because
it was the one commonality and it worked under bad transmission conditions,
os you could always "fall back" on it as a common format (for "bad
transmission conditions" read "competing technology compatibility problems")
And as the technology continued to improve, morse code became less and less
relevant -- but the older hams insisted that new hams (and ham wannabees)
continued to learn morse code. This drove off a lot of potential hams
(including me). Eventually, the restrictions were loosened; later, they
started allowing "no code" licenses. Now, morse code is basically an
anachronism, and a few years ago, the last services using it gave it up and
moved on to more modern technologies -- which removes any rationalization
the hams have that morse code is still a necessary technology.
My point? A couple:
1) that text hasn't YET been replaced by some other technology means nothing
about whether or not it will be down the road.
2) how you view this stuff is generational. Your parents didn't understand
rock and roll, and never saw the purpose. Your kids find rock and roll
wonderfully archaic.
3) If you hang to the "plain text is good enough" mentality, then you and
your ever shrinking group of like-thinkers will sit off in a corner as
everyone else wanders by and goes and does something else without you. In
fact, they probably already are.
Because the reality is, the newer users of the internet want styled text.
And if you tell them they don�t want it or need it, then most of them will
look at you like you looked at dad the first time he did the "old fogie"
schtick and nod politely and leave. They came into the internet with that
stuff; you aren't going to convince them.
If you want to be an old fogie, that's fine. But now that the technology for
styled text is here, and we have a generation of net-users who are growing
up with them, to insist on them using plain text is the same telling them to
put down that 2 meter rig, shut off the repeater and pulling out the more
code paddles. They'll look at you and go find someone who supplies what they
want....
--
Chuq Von Rospach, Internet Gnome <http://www.chuqui.com>
[<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> = <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> = <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
Yes, yes, I've finally finished my home page. Lucky you.
Yes, I am an agent of Satan, but my duties
are largely ceremonial.
