Cevpx wrote:
> Attributed Meowbot wrote:
>
>> Adam James Fitzpatrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> And often enough the poster hasn't written anything that actually
>>> *requires* HTML markup - it's just plain text anyway.
>>
>>
>> I even see some posters go to great lengths to make their HTML look
>> like plain text, including monospaced type and 80-column lines (no,
>> not <pre>, but an incredible simulation).
>
>
>
> Probably in an attempt to appease the plain-text pussies. ;)
>
>> OTOH, I've seen a few times where HTML actually did improve the
>> presentation. These have all been longish, dense text -- the examples
>> I recall have all been CFPs, abstracts or legal notices. For
>> discussion groups, the composition software tends to toss in way too
>> many gratuiutous elements.
>
>
>
> Presentation is what HTML is all about. How can anyone not want to have
> a tool that has the potential to augment their attempts at communication?
>
> How many web sites do you see in plain-text?
>
> We have all heard the pussy that goes by the name Fluffy expound the
> scripture that usenet is not the web... ad nauseam... etc., etc. Are we
> talking about bandwidth here? Do we still have people connecting at 300
> bps?
>
What costs more to maintain? A News server that gets 500,000 plain text
messages of 1k or 2k in size every day, or one that gets 500,000 HTML
messages that take up between 5k and 30k each?
