On Mon, 4 Oct 2004, Carlos Davila wrote: > Tim, > > One has to respect the culture of any individual list. I've received > enough responses to know that html posts are not very popular here and > that's fine with me....so I'll send my posts in text. > > That said, I have to confess that I am not entirely sold on all of the > explanations of why html is bad. For one thing...this is a list about > Linux....so one presumes most of the list members are *using* Linux; There are many linux mail clients...not all support HTML. > The other argument was that folks > with dialup connections will have lengthy downloads...it's not clear > just how much longer it takes a typical html post to download on a 56k > connection than on a broadband connection, probably not much longer. This is easily calculated. One HTML post may or may not make much difference but multiply that by the number of people who insist on using HTML and it begins to be a PITA. > Also, apparently, not everyone uses email readers that support > html...that may have been a problem back in the days when only pine or > elm were around, but should this be a problem in 2004? What does the date have to do with it? *Of course* I can use a mail client that supports HTML. I choose not to. *My* choice......got it? Lastly, HTML adds nothing to the information content. It's strctly ornamentation. You want ornamentation? Buy a christmas tree! -- Bob Holtzman "If you think you're getting free lunch, ......check the price of the beer!"
