Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
From: "Hannu E K Nevalainen (garbage mail)" <garbage_collector AT telia DOT com>
To: <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Subject: RE: For The Record: HTML Email on the Internet; RFC 2557
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 10:24:26 +0200
Message-ID: <NGBBLLIAMFLGJEOAJCCEIECJCOAA.garbage_collector@telia.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: <5.2.1.1.2.20030410160138.024b4998@pop3.cris.com>
Importance: Normal


 This will be the last of my postings regarding HTML.
I Consider it has gone far aside from what I wished for...
clearly off topic for the list by now.

Points made in both camps I believe.


> From: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com [mailto:cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com]On Behalf
> Of Randall R Schulz


> To Whom It May Concern,
>
> The IETF publishes this standard for electronic mail on the Internet
> using HTML and even supports resource references in the HTML whose
> targets (images, sounds, etc.) can be incorporated into the same MIME
> message as the HTML body.

POINT: It beeing a standard doesn't imply that it is appropriate to use
everywhere.

Consider WAP over an e.g. GPRS link; It uses a COMPRESSED form of HTML (WAP
is a HTML variation as I see it), can you imagine that! ;-)
 The reason is obvious; GPRS'es _low bandwidth_. This bandwidth is by far
HIGHER than previous implementations have had[1], but they still stick to
the compressed format. Why would the wanna do that, you think?

[1] GSM 9600 bps, GPRS ~384kpbs, ("3G" WCDMA, TDMA2k... up to 738kbps IIRC)


 For the record:   `8-}
I have nothing against HTML, I've hacked some myself.
The essential thing about my inital posting (H.T.M.L. thread) is here:

 a) There is a virus risk with it.
 b) Most discussion forums reject/frown on its use *IN THE FORUM*. (i.e.
pollution)
 c) It DOES add to network/server load.

I consider them to stand uncorrected still.
NOTE: c) because it is re-sent many many times e.g. at least once to every
participant on a discussion forum.
 -> ONE image from a 2megapixel digital camera in "high" quality can be
almost 1MB (rounded up). Multiply by 100 resends/participants -> 100MB of
data thats sent out from the server of the forum. For *ONE MESSAGE*. (Not
that I expect every user to attach such an image with every message they
send.)

 Given the above its easy to see that *very few users* sending this kind of
messages can waste the available bandwidth totally.
 I wouldn't be very surprised if a given ISP or server maintainer would
consider kicking out such a user after a few repeats.

POINT: *High* bandwidth _IS NOT_ the same as *limitless* bandwidth.

POINT: High bandwidth can easily be wasted.

> In my opinion, it's simply foolish to anchor electronic mail in the
> pre-markup, pre-media days of text-only electronic communication.
>
> Randall Schulz

 There are valid reasons to stay with simple protocols. Everything you use
doesn't have to be "broadband quality", just because it *can* be.


 "Niceness factor" not considered... ;-]  (that requires artistic/taste
prerequisites ;)

Level definition for "niceness":
 Check www.vidamus.se for an example of "really nice design";
 content: swedish text, nice gfx and interface.
 (DO click on the buttons! Note the RING of buttons)

/Hannu E K Nevalainen, Mariefred, Sweden

--END OF MESSAGE--


--
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/