|
|
|
| HTML Posts in rec.ww |
|---|
| message from tquac... on 1998/01/30 |
There's an ongoing thread over in news.admin.net-abuse.usenet
concerning whether posting in HTML constitutes usenet abuse. I've noticed
a fair amount of HTML posts here and was wondering if there was a
consensus of opinion in rec.woodworking about the issue.
Personally, I find it mildly irritating. I can view the posts if I
really want to, but usually don't. I assume people using non-HTML aware
readers don't care for the practice?
R,
Tom Q.
|
| Graham Fell replied to tquac... on 1998/01/31 |
We've had this discussion in another ISP related NG.
All in all we prefer non html postings.
Graham Fell
|
| Peter Lemmond replied to Graham Fell on 1998/02/01 |
Sadly, those people who know what you are talking about don't do it.
Those who don't have a clue will continue to do it.
-Peter
*** Please do not send me e-mail copies of posts ***
|
| Jack A. Zucker replied to Peter Lemmond on 1998/02/01 |
Not true. I enjoy HTML postings and being a software engineer, I
certainly have a clue. Furthermore, I DON'T do it myself.
I think technology marches in and HTML allows postings to be more
expressive.
Perhaps if we all could write like Hemmingway, there would be no need
but alas, there are few Hemmingways posting to usenet.
-Jaz
|
| Bob D. replied to Jack A. Zucker on 1998/02/03 |
Oh, oh, apologies in advance, but having survived round one of the
"USENET HTML Wars" (IMHO ACSII and sanity won), you've touched upon a
topic where sentiments run deep amongst the USENET survivors who fought
and won in the news.* battlegrounds. :-) BTW, the "inevitability" of
technology/HTML was one of the arguments then too.
But, an HTMLized post does absolutely nothing improve someones
writing. Just about anything useful which can be done via HTML to
"improve" readability someone already thought up an ASCII equivalent
for a long time ago. Also, the "extensions" possible by HTMLized posts
have just as much or more potential to *detract* from a post's readability
(far more font mixing, emphasis wielding, spurious image attaching,
blink attributing attrocities than useful enhancements going that path
in many folks opinion). Things like image sigs. are a space wasting,
bandwidth clogging, boil upon the collective nether regions of USENET.
We don't really need to see "dancing penguin" sigs. or give folks
hideous new ways to "draw our attention" (attribute "blink" anyone?) to
their nuggets (or road apples, as the case may be) o' wisdom. Even
things like embedded links (URLs) can be/are handled by some intelligent
newsreaders and don't require that the post itself be in HTML
or indeed in anything other than standard ASCII text.
This was fought over (in a major way) back when early Beta Netscape 4.0
was released with HTML as the default for posts (the heaviest fighting
was in the various "news.*" hierarchy groups for the most part).
Netscape removed HTML as the default (it is still an option) and the
ASCII traditionalists of USENET seem to have prevailed (viva la
traditional USENET!), though the dark forces of the HTML besotted,
cherry staining, minions still occassionally assault the ramparts to
test our resolve. :-)
During this struggle, the proposal was put forth to create new
hierarchies for the HTML smitten and let them prove their case that
HTML was the "wave of the future" and the way to do USENET. If the HTML
advocates were right, everyone would rush over to the new hierarchy
newsgroups and, like in Marx's theory of ultimate communism, the old
order (newsgroups) would wither away. Strangely enough, folks
advocating HTMLization were less than enthusiatic to do that (IMO, they
knew they'd be *very* lonely) and the great HTML rebellion was quashed
in its' tracks (huzzah!) for the nonce.
|
| Chris Hubner replied to Bob D. on 1998/02/03 |
I hate to burst your bubble, but this copy of Communicator 4.04 that I
Chris Hubner
Bob D. wrote:
|
| Bob D. replied to Chris Hubner on 1998/02/04 |
Interesting if that is the case. Netscape got severely pummeled about
the ears for that last time it happened and backed off. Wanna bet
they'll do so again if there's a hue and outcry? (And, if I were a
betting person, I wouldn't even take bets on there being a hue and
outcry as that would be stealing, not gambling :-).
Of course, NS could just leave the inexperienced new browser poster to
twist in the wind and wonder why they start receiving flames and mail
asking them to stop HTML dumping in the newsgroups.
HTML based posts can be as obnoxious as the oversensitive car alarm your
neighbor has which goes off everytime someone in the neigborhood closes
their car door or a dog barks.
|
| Jack A. Zucker replied to Bob D. on 1998/02/04 |
You make some excellent points but the same types of arguments were used by
assembler programmers when the "C" programming language was first introduced and
later the "C" programmers blasted the virtues of "C++" and object oriented
programs.
Personally, I don't much care for reading HTML posts that contain controls such
as buttons, dancing icons, and the like. The main thing I like about the the
"expressiveness" is the ability to do bold, italics,underline, etc.
Your argument about the ASCII equivalent symbols doesn't hold up IMHO since you
need to have a legend or prior UNIX/Usenet experience to decode many of those.
The fact is that the print media has already exposed hundreds of millions of
people to the virtues and expressiveness of font attributes. When's the last time
you saw those silly ASCII symbols used in the print media ? <g>
-Jaz
|
| bigch... replied to tquac... on 1998/01/31 |
I hear you Tom, but I think you may be swimming upstream. As the
internet becomes more and more popular, people want to find ways to
express their emotions more distinctly in email and Usenet posts, and
I'd expect Mickeysoft and Netscape to feed on that and encourage it.
Since the HTML-aware software is free, it is logical that people will
use it. I'd further expect the bandwidth problems to be treated just
like memory problems are - if you need more, get more! Isn't that the
American way? :(
Regards,
Chris Hubner
|
| Larry Jaques replied to tquac... on 1998/01/31 |
I abhor the HTML nearly as much as SPAM. If I want to read code,
I'll go into my ASCII reader and make a page. When I read newsgroups,
such as r.ww, I like to see cleanly misspelled words, not code.
Like peace and quiet? Buy a phoneless cord.
http://diversify.com/ljaques/stees.html Hilarious T-shirts online
|
|
