And it came to pass that Justin H. wrote:
> Mark wrote:
>>
>> Gervase Markham wrote:
>>
>> >>Now, as for newsgroup posts, that's a different thing,
>> >>and I understand that I probably should send in text
>> >>format. How much of an issue is that these days?
>> >
>> > Still a big one.
>>
>> Which prompts the question . . . why is it still, or should
>> it be? I can understand, back in the days of BBS
>> popularity, where it would be a financial burden on the
>> SYSOP to send packets of larger size than they needed to
>> be. But today, many years later, why the resistance to
>> change, when (at least in my opinion) HTML makes for a more
>> pleasing page to read. Certainly, web browers/sites are not
>> plain text based, so why then should messages be so? I'm
>> playing devil's advocate here, but I'm still curious about
>> it.
>>
>
> Because there are still people on per-minute dial-ups, or
> pay-per-connection telcos. Quite a LOT of people, in fact.
>
And there are those who pay not only by the minute, but also by
the kilobyte to download newsgroup messages. HTML increased the
size of a message by a significant factor.
> Also, there are a lot of people who use text only mail/news
> clients that will puke out the ugliest looking page you've
> ever seen. And don't forget the few well known security
> issues that people simply don't want to deal with - which is
> why some people use text only mail/news clients.
>
And you must also figure in the fact that all these new
'internet appliances' - including cellphones, beepers, as well
as those special units - will only display plaintext, OR have a
message size limit.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( Dionysian Reveler
Was there dust on the mirror before Hui-Neng wiped it off?
To reply: xjahnATyahooDOTcom
