Subject: Re: H.T.M.L. (RE: Getting home directory in Windows 2000 environment)
From: "Chalres "grey wolf" Banas" <[email-masked]>
To: Randall R Schulz <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 19:25:39 -0600

On Thu, 10 Apr 2003 10:15:51 -0700, Randall R Schulz <[email-masked]> 
wrote:

> GARYDJONES,
>> > and it is widely supported by GUI mail and news clients.
>>
>> Does that mean that we should all post in jpegs since we could then 
>> achieve exactly the same thing?
>
> That is a strawman argument and false in its own right.
>
i personally don't see how.  mail using JPEGs to convey text is the same 
general effect and idea of using HTML to do the same.  when you throw CSS 
into the mix, you might as well use JPEGs.  same visual result - you just 
can't copy and paste.

>
>> > Personal communications must extend beyond
>> > simple text without stylistic variation for computers to fully
>> > facilitate human communication.
>>
>> Post your proof.
>
> Ipso loquitur. People communicate audibly, visually as well as textually. 
> Arbitrary restriction to styleless text is artificial and unjustified.
>
so say you.  i and all of the people i know need no more than text to 
convey simple thought.  take the smileys for instance. :)

>
>> People have been using plain text to communicate quite satisfactorily, 
>> thank
>> you very much.
>>
>> >>     c) Attached images add an unnecessary burden on email downloads
>>
>> > Burden? On whom?
>>
>> On every single person that receives it. That much must be obvious, or 
>> are
>> you being deliberately obtuse?
>
> Let me rephrase: _What_ burden? There is no burden.
>
bandwidth.  CPU power.

not everyone is on a T1 or DSL.  a lot of people are still on dialup.  a 
50-100% increase in message size is a burden to some.  and with JPEG or GIF 
backgrounds and so forth, that's even more burdensome.  not to mention 
storage.  i rarely delete messages from this list.

or in the case of other people, their inept mail client is incapable of 
rendering HTML mail for some reason - take AOL 5 and 6 for example.  i've 
heard they don't parse HTML mail.  and look at Opera 6 and 7 (which i use). 
 Opera is designed to not render images in an HTML email.  in fact, there 
are a lot of HTML emails i get that say simply "This cannot be viewed in 
plain text." or some similar warning.  on the other hand, Opera parses HTML 
quite happily, as its mail system is entirely XML-based.  it's a burden for 
me to receive HTML emails because of the way Opera handles them by default.

as a side note - Opera sends emails in plaintext - by default.  that's one 
of the reasons i chose Opera as my primary client.  other reasons include 
M2's nice spam filter feature - i can weed out spam quite easily now.  what 
little isn't caught by my spam filter comes on the cygwin list.

but i'm digressing from the point.

i don't like seeing fancy text.  bold, pink, 20pt. Times New Roman is 
incredibly difficult to read and even moreso annoying.  another burden on 
me.  some people are colorblind - if the sender chooses to send in a color 
the recipient can't even SEE - don't you think that's a problem?

sure, i miss not being able to bold my text or throw an underline under 
book titles in my emails.  but i make up for that by making it READ BOLDLY 
like so, or _emphasizing_ my text in /various/ ways.

did i mention smileys? :)

>
>> > If the poster feels the need to communicate visually,
>> > then it is their prerogative.
>>
>> Just as it would be my perogative to ignore it or bounce it.
>
> Yes, you may plug your ears and cover you eyes all you want. No one loses 
> but you.
>
...and the sender.  if you send me an HTML email and i choose to bounce it, 
then it's also your loss that you didn't get your message through to me.  
and if you don't make the effort to get past whatever mechanisms i have in 
place - which i place for a _reason_ - then your mail isn't important to 
me.  so, no loss.  so YOU'RE the one SOL, not _me_.

:)

>
>> >> Offending software:
>> >>   AFAIK only MICROSOFT Outlook and  Outlook Express has this enabled 
>> by
>> >> default; SHAME ON YOU M.S!
>>
>> > Again, this is BS. I use Eudora for mail and Mozilla (and before it
>> > Netscape) for news, and they all send HTML mail and images without a
>> > problem.
>>
>> By default?
>
> Yes.
>
ew, that sucks.

>
>> > Please don't be so atavistic. By definition everyone using Cygwin is
>> > using an operating system whose GUI subsystem is not optional.
>>
>> Whereas html /is/ optional.
>
> So are lower-case letters.
>
as well as many other things.  if i wanted tripe discussions, i would have 
joined the [email-masked] mailing list.

>
> Randall Schulz
>
>

-- 
Charles "grey wolf" Banas
http://the-junkyard.net  tech advisor

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/