On 14 Jul, John Glasscock wrote in part:
> 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.
> 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.
I used to use HTML, but changed over time as I became aware of
"net-etiquette" and the use of emoticrons i.e. :-) or :D, etc. One can
*always* express SOME degree of inflection in plain text.
The big problem that I have with HTML, it it's "weight." I frequently
manage 400+ messages a day (on the low side), and some of these puppies
are 50 to 60K in size - *more* if quoting complete threads. If everyone
used HTML, bandwidth gets very high and it takes a *long* time to
download. Also, many, many people outside the US pay for their time on
their ISP (to include, but not limited to England, Germany and other
European countries, Russia, Indonesia, Thiland and other points East),
and this is puts quite a burden for a pretty postcard. Also, as
mentioned, some mailers don't handle HTML well, and what they see is
just a lot of code with their messages. I have found most e-groups
support plain text fully (via its members) and do not use HTML. Some
even ban them altogether. Just my 2cents :-)
Regards,
Gary
