6 Jan
1999
6 Jan
'99
12:29 p.m.
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 <HTML><BODY>message
text</BODY></HTML>. 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?