Tuesday, September 9, 2003, 8:59:49 AM, Bill wrote: B> If the goal is COMMUNICATION, plain text wins. If the goal is
You are trying to emphasize "COMMUNICATION," right? That's why it's capitalized? I wonder if HTML would have been able to present that across better by using italics or bold font? B> "making it pretty", HTML wins. That's kind of a simple-minded view. Presentation counts. There have been a few snipes recently about how FoxMail does a lousy job at wrapping lines, etc. That's presentation and it clearly matters to even us plain-text techy types. B> I receive a lot of HTML messages that look like ransom notes. Great simile! B> "If I have 557 fonts, then I'm going to use every one of them B> in every message," Agreed. It's just like the early days of the Apple LaserWriter and all those hideous print newsletters that came out with 557 fonts all over it. Still, we survived those days. I'm disappointed to learn that the HTML editor on TB is as weak as being presented and that you can't make it the default. These discussions kind of remind me of Mac users defending their black & white screens when Windows came out with color screen. "Who needs color? It just slows things down and doesn't add anything!" Having gone through many of these cycles, it's clear there will always be some who fight the progress that is inexorable and others who adapt. Lest you think that I'm a big HTML fan, I'm really not. I made out quite well with nroff/troff. However, there is this thing called momentum that HTML surely has. Even the fact that RIT has provided, however reluctantly, an HTML editor shows how much demand there is for it. -- Dave Kennedy ________________________________________________ Current version is 2.00 | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
