6 Feb
2000
6 Feb
'00
7:34 a.m.
It was thus said that the Great Peter Pachla once stated:
Hi Sean,
Unless you were on the list in January of 1999, you wouldn't have seen the
message I quoted. Last year this time was a discussion about this very
topic and I just thought it would be interesting to bring it to our
collective attention again.
I have elm set up to save any outgoing message I send in a folder based
upon the recipient, so everything I write for classiccmp (with a few
exceptions over the past few days) is in one large folder called
``classiccmp.''
> Sheesh. Plain text really sucks. Y'all
prefer that someone type _like
>this_ to indicate a piece of underlined text? or my habit *bolding* with
>asterisks? This message "encoded" with HTML is roughly 5% larger than it
>is in plain text. Wow, now that's a waste of resources.
Where did this quote come from? I've not seen this message, is my ISP losing
mail for me again? :-( And to whoever actually wrote the above, where on
earth did you get that
figure of 5% from? HTML encoded messages are pretty much *100%* bigger than
plain text messages - such messages contain TWO copies of the text, one in
plain ASCII, one in HTML.
He was saying that HTML *itself* only adds about 5% to plain text.
Perhaps in a few cases that's true, like for hand written HTML, but most of
these so called HTML editors are really bad and bloat the HTML out quite a
bit.
-spc (You should have seen the HTML reply I sent him back 8-)