I agree that linking to a site for certain content is a useful technique.
> If I can send a thousand emails in less than 30 minutes with the options of cc'ing a mail, cut and paste and yes even > attachments, why would I resort to the old fashioned way involving the cost of stamps, the hassle of trudging to the Post > Box or Post Office and so on? My point regarding typewritten messages is that they are purely verbal, linear sequential messages and that advocates of non-typographic email advocate the antiquated equivalent of typewriter coded messages in multimedia rich environment. I acknowledge that not all email I send benefits from font, size, style, and color variation. However, when a message is more complex, even simple typographic variation improves "readability." >As for graphic potential, the typewriter never stopped that. To clarify: My point regarding typewriters, was the limited >typographic< capabilities of the typewriter. And certainly, unless you're using an IBM Selectric, typewriters are capable of little typographic variation. I'd wager that standards will evolve to accommodate more effective communication. Mel
