I agree with you about the HTML; I've found that some people can be agitated
by the use of it. I think it is unreasonable to suggest that just because
*some* people (for sentimental or whatever reasons) want to cling to archaic
text only mail readers, that nobody should be able to use HTML. I've also
noticed that some (not all) of the people that claim HTML is evil tend to
have a .signature file that takes half a page!! (I find that more annoying
than embedded links) The complaint from 'text only' mail readers though, is
that the mail readers don't know how to handle the HTML tags in the body of
the message and therefore display all the tags making it difficult to read
the message (my answer would be to use Netscape or Mozilla!!) BUT text is
the rule of this list however, so we should abide by that :(
Just my two cents!
Mike
> A correspondent made a plea, not an unreasonable one but one with which
> I may not entirely agree, that messages be posted in text only and not
> in HTML.
>
> I, for one, find that with HTML one can be more expressive and
> informative in conveying important information. I also believe that
> those who limit themselves strictly to text are not able to benefit from
> the richness that the web and discussion groups have to offer. My
> analogy is the difference between color TV and black-and-white TV, or a
> book devoid of illustrations v. a plain typewritten page.
>
> Personally I don't understand the reluctance to embrace HTML. However,
> I am prepared to be guided by the members of the list who may feel
> strongly about this issue one way or the other. If you would like to
> send your comments to me over the next 5 days, I will summarize and post
> the results of this inquiry.
>
> --
> John Glasscock
> Administrator & Programmer
> EtherDog MultiMedia
> 3821 N Sugar Lane
> Bloomington, IN 47404
> tel:+1.812.876.5233
> fax:+1.508.256.2413
> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Registered Linux User# 183536
> on Registered Linux Box# 81201
>
> "Save the world, eschew Microsoft."
>
