From kurtkilgor@bigfoot.com Wed Jan 6 20:29:13 1999 From: kurtkilgor@bigfoot.com To: test-drb@ccmp.vtda.org Subject: Message formats Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1999 20:29:13 +0000 Message-ID: <199901070229.SAA15142@geocities.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============7470997752716466337==" --===============7470997752716466337== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > The same is not true of html. It's not the waste of bandwidth - it's the > fact that it's darn difficult to read. And it doesn't convey any extra > meaning Actually, I wouldn't even mind simple html, like message text. But most of those programs make crazy html documents that would make its original authors cringe, no doubt. 20 lines of code, mostly weird numbers and font commands and style sheets and so on. Now _that_ is unreadable, and I don't consider it real html, either. > OK, I'll do {\bf bold face} like that. Documented standard, you know... Of course, doing it *with asterisks* is a lot easier to type and understand. > What about the waste in _my_ resources - the carbon-based computer I am > using to compose this message - in trying to decode the real information > from a pile of useless html tags ? Indeed. Some people think they are doing me and others a great service by sending messages with no value whatsoever, and they think they ought to send it in what format is convenient to _them_. Nah. > Well, there's be a good reason for doing that in the UK. The license for > a colour TV is something like 4 times the cost of one for a black and > white TV. And the extra 'entertainment' might not be worth that much. TVs require licenses in the UK? What about if you buy a CRT and make your own? --===============7470997752716466337==--