Subject: Re: H.T.M.L. (RE: Getting home directory in Windows 2000 environment)
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 19:29:54 +0200

Andrew DeFaria <[email-masked]> wrote:
> [email-masked] wrote:
>> Andrew DeFaria <[email-masked]> wrote:
>>> [email-masked] wrote:

>>>>> It is the lingua franca of the worldwide web
>>>> Yes. Let it stay there.
>>> Why?
>>
>> For the reasons outlined by Hannu E K Nevalainen. Do try to keep up.
> I have kept up - I just don't buy his reasoning. I can as easily say we 
> should post in HTML for the reasons outlined by Randall Schultz but you 
> don't buy that.

Because Randy has failed to provide any facts. Hannu's reasons are factual
(i.e. html /is/ bigger than plain text, which is a burden for everyone who
uses slow connections, and /can/ expose security holes in poor software).
Randy says 'html is fine because it can look cool'. Yippee.

>>>> Does that mean that we should all post in jpegs since we could then 
>>>> achieve exactly the same thing?
>>>
>>> That's an unreasonable stretch from html -> jpeg.
>>
>> Not at all. The presentation of binary images is "widely supported by 
>> GUI mail and news clients". You might have noted that this is a stupid 
>> argument.
> Sorry, I took the statement (the "we should all post in jpegs) to mean 
> that we should replace any text with a jpeg image of the text.

The point is that html does not replace the text, it merely duplicates it.
One could do the same with a multipart email which contains a jpeg, png,
bitmap or whatever, which does the same job. Pretty dumb, huh?

 After all 
> there is no reason to post a jpeg except to show something visually

I would say that in a time when webspace can be free, even posting a jpeg is
pretty rude since it would be easier to upload it to webspace and post a
link. However not everyone has web access. Shocking, isn't it?

>  that 
> is just easier to show visually than to have to describe in words.

Which can be done with plain text, which was exactly what I was getting at.

>> If he expects to be believed 
>> then he should be able to offer proof to back up his theory.
> And Hannu has made his assertions too without any posted proof either. 

That is because the proof for at least some of his assertions exist in the
mail that sparked Hannu's complaint (size).

> As for alternate forms of communication I've heard of studies that say 
> that only about 8% of what is said in a conversation is actually 
> listened to.

I am reminded of that Gary Larson cartoon "What we say... what dogs hear" :)
You're not recommending video conferencing are you? It would do a much
better job than html after all...

>>>> People have been using plain text to communicate quite 
>>>> satisfactorily, thank you very much.
>>>
>>> How many colors does your monitor do? People have communicated with 
>>> black and white monitors quite satisfactory, thank you very much.
>>
>> Indeed, I do not send my email in any other colours but black and 
>> white or whatever other colours you choose to render them in. The 
>> choice is yours. What was your point, or did you not have one?

> My point was these "minimulists" who state that ASCII text is all that 
> is needed should practice what they preach by using monitors in only 
> black and white!

For the purposes of reading and writing email, I can assure you that only
green and black are in use here. Would it bother me to do this on a "dumb
terminal" with only b&w or g&b? Nope. Nor to do most of the other things I
do with this computer. There are some tasks which absolutely require the use
of colours (editing colour images for example), but this simply isn't one of
them.

 Throughout human history people afraid of change 
> usually tout something akin to "If it was good enough for my grandfather 
> then it's good enough for me"

No nucelar weapons? No need to worry about the ozone layer or anything
similar? Only one TV channel to choose from? Sounds fine to me. I might even
get out and do more climbing.

> there probably are those less fortunate 
> out there that only have ASCII terminals running in DOS with 640K. 
> Shouldn't we be polite and accomidate for the LCD?

Yes. (Since you asked.) The lowest common denominator is plain text.
Obviously Cygwin itself cannot run without Windows. Personally, yes, I think
an equivalent which runs in DOS, or anything else, is also a great
objective. Let me put my opinion on this another way - shouldn't Cygwin stop
supporting that ancient Windows 9x sh*te, because after all then the full
security features of NT could be used, there would be no problems because of
incompatabilitites between 9x and NT-type systems (e.g. the mutt dotlock
issue), etc?

If the list wants to go all html or even allow html email then that is fine
with me, I can choose whether to take part or not based on that known set of
factor. However the current situation is that html email is not allowed yet
people insist on doing so. (Actually something is fscked up there - the
webpage suggests that such email is not accepted, yet evidently it is.)

> However I think most hear would agree that that is ludicrous in that 
> that sets the bar just way too low.

Why? The more people able to take part in a discussion the better AFAIAC.

>> http://news.gmane.org/
> Being there, done that, bought the T shirt and program! In fact that is 
> exactly the way I read and respond to this silly mail list (another 
> ancient and IMHO, dying concept... Which is why I was ducking for cover 
> because this sort of thinking seems to offend many others here for some 
> reason).

News is over twenty years old, they probably think this should be done
entirely on the web. In fact anyone who "got connected" in the last three
years or so probably thinks the web _is_ the internet (yes Dad, I mean
you!) *sigh*

--
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/