If I have:
struct one_{
unsigned int one_1;
unsigned short one_2;
unsigned short one_3;
};
struct two_{
unsigned int two_1;
unsigned short two_2;
unsigned char two_3;
};
struct mystruct{
struct one_ one;
struct two_ two;
}mystruct1;
Then could I by any change ask on the value of the whole struct mystruct1,
that is all the elements in the struct in one call? I want to do something
like (in pseudo like language):
if(mystruct1 == 0) { print("All elements of mystruct1 is zero");}
Best Regards
Terry
Nov 13 '05
258  8346 
On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 10:52:51 +0000, Mark Gordon
<sp******@flash-gordon.me.uk> wrote: I've used at least one news reader which *did* apply *bold*, /italic/,
_underline_ and possibly other mark ups and did a good job of it. So
people who want such things have the option of choosing a news reader
that supports them *without* causing problems people who do not want
them.
I don't understand that statement. If they use such a reader to
compose messages which I read, they *are* causing problems, since I
still have to receive and store it (at least temporarily) and it will
quite likely display garbage in my newsreader.
If you use your reader only to compose notes to yourself, make it as
fancy as you like.
--
Al Balmer
Balmer Consulting re************************@att.net
Sheldon Simms <sh**********@yahoo.com> wrote: On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 15:32:45 -0600, Programmer Dude wrote:
HTML offers a wonderful, potentially universal, way to add dimension
to text. The EXACT SAME dimension that we've enjoyed for decades in
our books, magazines and newspapers. Why NOT enjoy the power of the
additional information-carrying capacity of formatted text?
One good reason not to use HTML is that HTML sucks rocks if your
goal is to format text. It is not a text-formatting language and
never was intended to be.
Perhaps Programmer Dude was including CSS in this discussion, which is a
text-formatting language, but is generally so intertwined with HTML that
one can simply assume it is there.
What is CSS? http://www.howtocreate.co.uk/tutoria...p?tut=1&part=1
The days of USENET as totally devoid of formatted text, which is easier
to read, are indeed numbered.
Of course, when one needs monospaced text, HTML does provide for such
things...infact, there is even a tag <CODE> defined in HTML specifically
for source code. http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/text.html#edef-CODE
--
In <t7********************************@4ax.com> Alan Balmer <al******@att.net> writes: On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 10:52:51 +0000, Mark Gordon
<sp******@flash-gordon.me.uk> wrote:
I've used at least one news reader which *did* apply *bold*, /italic/,
_underline_ and possibly other mark ups and did a good job of it. So
people who want such things have the option of choosing a news reader
that supports them *without* causing problems people who do not want
them.
I don't understand that statement. If they use such a reader to
compose messages which I read, they *are* causing problems, since I
still have to receive and store it (at least temporarily) and it will
quite likely display garbage in my newsreader.
Not necessarily. It depends on the markup convention being used. It is
perfectly possible to use the usual Usenet conventions in deciding which
font to use: included text and text between / characters can be rendered
with an italic font, text between _ characters with an underlined font
and text between * characters with a bold font. Some care must be taken
when handling mathematical expressions, though ;-)
Dan
--
Dan Pop
DESY Zeuthen, RZ group
Email: Da*****@ifh.de
On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 08:25:11 -0700
Alan Balmer <al******@att.net> wrote: On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 10:52:51 +0000, Mark Gordon
<sp******@flash-gordon.me.uk> wrote:
I've used at least one news reader which *did* apply *bold*,
/italic/,_underline_ and possibly other mark ups and did a good job
of it. So people who want such things have the option of choosing a
news reader that supports them *without* causing problems people who
do not want them.
I don't understand that statement. If they use such a reader to
compose messages which I read, they *are* causing problems, since I
still have to receive and store it (at least temporarily) and it will
quite likely display garbage in my newsreader.
No, otherwise my example above would have caused you problems. In the
above paragraph typed by you it would have displayed the word "are" in
bold because you typed it as "*are*". All the reader I mentioned does is
scan the text for commonly used emphasis markers and render the text
appropriately. So if you put underscores around a word it will be
displayed in this reader as underlined. If you put *s around it the it
is displayed in bold. If you put /s around it the it gets displayed in
italics. So it does not produce something that will be garbage in a
normal reader and it will add visibly emphasis to posts by people using
standard news readers.
If you use your reader only to compose notes to yourself, make it as
fancy as you like.
I'm not and I'm not advocating HTML. I am just pointing out that without
inconveniencing those of us using normal news readers people *can* have
things displayed in bold or underlined etc when the rest of us put
emphasis in out posts.
Similarly, if someones news reader renders :-) as a graphical smiley,
where is the problem for you?
--
Mark Gordon
Paid to be a Geek & a Senior Software Developer
Although my email address says spamtrap, it is real and I read it.
On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 17:31:09 +0000, Mark Gordon
<sp******@flash-gordon.me.uk> wrote: On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 08:25:11 -0700
Alan Balmer <al******@att.net> wrote:
On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 10:52:51 +0000, Mark Gordon
<sp******@flash-gordon.me.uk> wrote:
>I've used at least one news reader which *did* apply *bold*,
>/italic/,_underline_ and possibly other mark ups and did a good job
>of it. So people who want such things have the option of choosing a
>news reader that supports them *without* causing problems people who
>do not want them.
I don't understand that statement. If they use such a reader to
compose messages which I read, they *are* causing problems, since I
still have to receive and store it (at least temporarily) and it will
quite likely display garbage in my newsreader.
No, otherwise my example above would have caused you problems. In the
above paragraph typed by you it would have displayed the word "are" in
bold because you typed it as "*are*". All the reader I mentioned does is
scan the text for commonly used emphasis markers and render the text
appropriately.
<snip>
My bad. I had assumed that you were indeed talking about HTML or RTF.
Unfortunately, for 95% of posters who include such things, my
assumption would have been correct.
--
Al Balmer
Balmer Consulting re************************@att.net
Mark Gordon <sp******@flash-gordon.me.uk> writes:
[...] I've used at least one news reader which *did* apply *bold*, /italic/,
_underline_ and possibly other mark ups and did a good job of it. So
people who want such things have the option of choosing a news reader
that supports them *without* causing problems people who do not want
them.
As it happens, the newsreader I'm currently using (Gnus v5.9.0) does
use boldface for *bold* and underlining for _underlining_. I think it
tries to use italics for /italics/, but my terminal emulator doesn't
support italics.
I wouldn't mind if it also showed me the '*', '_', and '/' characters.
It probably causes problems for things like __STDC__ (I'll see when
this article shows up). It is, of course, infinitely configurable,
but I haven't bothered to figure it out yet.
In a non-Usenet context, I've seen software that displays "8)" as a
smiley, which is annoying when someone happens to want to use that
sequence of characters. Even if it's meant to be a smiley, I'd rather
see the '8' and the ')'.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://www.sdsc.edu/~kst>
Schroedinger does Shakespeare: "To be *and* not to be"
(Note new e-mail address) te*********@BUSThotmailE.Rcom writes:
[...] The days of USENET as totally devoid of formatted text, which is easier
to read, are indeed numbered.
I hope it's a big number.
Of course, when one needs monospaced text, HTML does provide for such
things...infact, there is even a tag <CODE> defined in HTML specifically
for source code.
I might not mind if I could count on everyone to use it properly.
Even then, it would inevitably make it more difficult for me (and
everyone else) to write articles when all I want to do is write a few
paragraphs of text. I write some HTML for web pages (nothing fancy).
If I had to go to that much effort to post here, I would do it far
less often. Perhaps that wouldn't be such a bad thing (yeah, false
humility), but there are plenty of others whose contributions would be
missed.
If you want the web, you know where to find it.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://www.sdsc.edu/~kst>
Schroedinger does Shakespeare: "To be *and* not to be"
(Note new e-mail address)
Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.org> wrote: te*********@BUSThotmailE.Rcom writes:
[...] The days of USENET as totally devoid of formatted text, which is easier
to read, are indeed numbered.
I hope it's a big number.
I hope the number is large enough to allow for good client programs to
be developed to handle such a thing well. I do not yet believe they
exist (hint:'good' is a relative term and I have high standards), but
they are getting close.
Of course, when one needs monospaced text, HTML does provide for such
things...infact, there is even a tag <CODE> defined in HTML specifically
for source code.
I might not mind if I could count on everyone to use it properly.
Which places great importance on writing good client programs for
USENET.
Even then, it would inevitably make it more difficult for me (and
everyone else) to write articles when all I want to do is write a few
paragraphs of text.
Why?
I can see no reason to believe that this task would be any more
difficult then it is now. You would still essentially create a new
message, type it in and post it. The extra features would be there for
you to use or not.
--
Sheldon Simms wrote: One good reason not to use HTML is that HTML sucks rocks if your
goal is to format text. It is not a text-formatting language and
never was intended to be.
It depends on your definition of text-formatting. If you define it
as "page layout" I agree it was never intended as such. If you
define it as "text attributes" then it clearly WAS originally
intended as such (hence those depreciated tags).
I see two big advantages to HTML over plain text: The ability to
provide more natural emphasis (that is, true italics and bold
rather than the crude ASCII versions of such). And the big one:
the ability to wrap to fit the user's window width (and I mean
"window", not "Window").
Formatting with hard returns to 78, 77, 75, 72m 68 or 65 is a start,
but wouldn't it be nice to be able to tuck a small window somewhere
on your screen (say at 40 cols) and STILL have the text read nice?
So far, I see advantages and no disadvantages....
--
|_ CJSonnack <Ch***@Sonnack.com> _____________| How's my programming? |
|_ http://www.Sonnack.com/ ___________________| Call: 1-800-DEV-NULL |
|_____________________________________________|___ ____________________|
On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 te*********@BUSThotmailE.Rcom wrote:
Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.org> wrote: te*********@BUSThotmailE.Rcom writes:
[...] The days of USENET as totally devoid of formatted text, which is easier
to read, are indeed numbered.
I hope it's a big number.
I hope the number is large enough to allow for good client programs to
be developed to handle such a thing well. I do not yet believe they
exist (hint:'good' is a relative term and I have high standards), but
they are getting close.
Of course, when one needs monospaced text, HTML does provide for such
things...infact, there is even a tag <CODE> defined in HTML specifically
for source code.
I might not mind if I could count on everyone to use it properly.
Which places great importance on writing good client programs for
USENET.
s/client programs/users/
Unless you're proposing an *amazing* leap forward in natural-language
parsing within the above "numbered" years, the responsibility for
courteous HTML use remains on the user's shoulders, not on his
software.
<h1><font="comic sans" size="72"><blink>I could write like this
all the time... how would your clever little HTML newsreader like
that, hmm?</blink></font></h1>
Plain text does a great job of transmitting information from place
to place and person to person. Re an earlier argument possibly by
someone else: No, I have no books on my shelf written in monospace,
but nor do I own any books with colored text, bold text interspersed
with regular, "smilies," or -- god forbid -- blinking text. Like
someone else also said: Text formatting is fine, but HTML sucks at
text formatting. :-) Even then, it would inevitably make it more difficult for me (and
everyone else) to write articles when all I want to do is write a few
paragraphs of text.
Why?
I can see no reason to believe that this task would be any more
difficult then it is now. You would still essentially create a new
message, type it in and post it. The extra features would be there for
you to use or not.
It would probably be inconvenient to use the new features in
most newsreaders, especially the old standards with the three-letter
names. Me, I use Pine over SSH. I don't have a toolbar to click on
the "B" for bold or whatever, and HTML-formatted text looks really
ugly in a *nix text window. Think Lynx, but with trolls.
-Arthur
Programmer Dude wrote:
Sheldon Simms wrote:
One good reason not to use HTML is that HTML sucks rocks if your
goal is to format text. It is not a text-formatting language and
never was intended to be.
It depends on your definition of text-formatting. If you define it
as "page layout" I agree it was never intended as such. If you
define it as "text attributes" then it clearly WAS originally
intended as such (hence those depreciated tags).
I see two big advantages to HTML over plain text: The ability to
provide more natural emphasis (that is, true italics and bold
rather than the crude ASCII versions of such). And the big one:
the ability to wrap to fit the user's window width (and I mean
"window", not "Window").
Formatting with hard returns to 78, 77, 75, 72m 68 or 65 is a start,
but wouldn't it be nice to be able to tuck a small window somewhere
on your screen (say at 40 cols) and STILL have the text read nice?
So far, I see advantages and no disadvantages....
The maxim for Internet transmission used to be "be liberal in what
you accept, conservative in what you send".
The existing system known as Usenet ranges to serve people from those
using HTML emabled readers to those using Tin. The Tin folks
will not understand HTML very easily.
Pure, text editor ASCII text is a least common denominator, a
simplifier discipline on the medium which costs nothing and
*really* restricts nobody. If you want HTML, put it on a
webpage and refer to it in Usenet posts.
Especially since HTML itself is now an evolving standard,
it should be clear that pure ASCII text has advantages over
any sort of interpreted formatting.
Besides, it's more or less implied by the early Usenet RFCs. In
c.l.c terms, text other than ASCII text will induce undefined
behavior. If you wanna chat, chat by all means, but let's at least
make an attempt to maintain *some* measure of distinction between
that and Usenet.
--
|_ CJSonnack <Ch***@Sonnack.com> _____________| How's my programming? |
|_ http://www.Sonnack.com/ ___________________| Call: 1-800-DEV-NULL |
|_____________________________________________|___ ____________________|
--
Les Cargill
Chris Torek wrote: Proportional fonts printed at high resolutions (several thousand
dpi) have been found to be easier to read when printed on paper.
(And, obviously, when printed in non-digital mediums such as
printing presses.)
Proportional fonts (mis)displayed on low-resolution, typically 75
and up to perhaps 100 dpi, computer screens have not been shown to
be easier to read. As I understand it, studies conflict, but still
lean towards "fixed-width fonts are easier to read".
Interesting. I wasn't aware of that. I was aware there it had
been shown that sans-serif fonts (usually considered fatiguing
for lengthy text) are better on PC screens, because the serifs
turn out to be visual clutter at low rez (which suggests the odd
idea that a sans-serif, monospace font would be ideal...I just
don't think I *know* of one!)
Even on web sites, I find the variable-width fonts rather klunky.
I just copy/pasted this message into Word and looked at it with
Times New Roman, Arial, Courier New and (my personal source code
choice) Lucida Console. All 10 point.
The Times Roman looked the best to me, the Courier the worst.
Personal perception, obviously, but I question the idea that
monospace is easier. As you say, the test results vary.
Maybe I'll try reading amUSENET in some variable pitch font for
a while and see what I think.... Just about every Usenet posting I've ever read was not.
Indeed. I suspect far too many would look like, well, "Wired"
magazine...
Perhaps that will serve the same filtering purpose as top posting
and over-quoting do now.
--
|_ CJSonnack <Ch***@Sonnack.com> _____________| How's my programming? |
|_ http://www.Sonnack.com/ ___________________| Call: 1-800-DEV-NULL |
|_____________________________________________|___ ____________________|
Richard Heathfield wrote: ...then not backing it up when called on it.
You and your "calling me on it."
You know what, Richard: put me in your killfile and *leave* me there
this time. I think we'll both be happier.
--
|_ CJSonnack <Ch***@Sonnack.com> _____________| How's my programming? |
|_ http://www.Sonnack.com/ ___________________| Call: 1-800-DEV-NULL |
|_____________________________________________|___ ____________________|
Keith Thompson wrote: Formatted, proportionally-spaced fonts are *E*A*S*I*E*R to read.
Repeat: eas***>>>IER<<<***
Not "easy". EASIER.
Yes, yes, I understand.
I read the words. My response was not intended to directly refute
what you wrote; I was commenting further on it.
Okay, cool.
What I dispute is the relevance of that fact to Usenet.
And you may have a good point.
If ANY book deserved to be set in mono, seems K&R would be a
good choice.
Yet, it wasn't.
Agreed. When they published K&R, it was well worth it to go to the
effort of formatting it in a variable-width font, as is done for
most books. It might have been easier and cheaper to use a plain
typewriter font; I'm glad they went to the extra effort to make it
more readable.
I worked in the graphic arts area and my dad is into book publishing
(we published a few "vanity books" when he had he graphic arts biz).
There is no extra effort. For *many* years now, typesetting has been
computer controlled (for a long time with dedicated machines, but
increasingly with PC software). The kerning and justification needs
are all handled by computer. The "inputter" just types. (Although
I suspect these days, most authors present the data electronically,
so no additional typing--just dump into a layout program.)
When I post to Usenet, it's not worth my time to do that kind of
formatting.
If you want to present just text (no emphasis), you'd just type.
But advanced features would be there if desired.
If HTML postings were generally supported, I suppose I could go to
the effort of specifying that I want this paragraph to be in a
variable-width font, and use <pre>...</pre> for code samples, and
actual *boldface* and _underlining_ where it's appropriate,...
The existing tools are already more sophisticated than that. The
emphasis bits... just highlight and Ctrl-B (bold) or Ctrl-U
(underline) or Ctrl-I (italic). Way I'd probably design a system,
you'd specify the default font. If you included source code, you
would highlight and press ... well, whatever key you like.
At no time should anyone have to input the actual tags (unless
they WANTED to for advanced features or fine control).
Quite frankly, it's not worth the effort.
As you state it, I agree completely. But if it were no different
than you do today?
If you want to use a newsreader that lets you read it in your
favorite font, feel free; I'm not interested in adding extraneous
formatting information.
Agreed on all counts. If you don't want to be *bold* or /italic/
or _underlined_, don't be! Myself, I LIKE the power of expressive
text.
Just about every single technical manual, book, or magazine I've
ever read was produced by professionals. Just about every Usenet
posting I've ever read was not. Look at how much trouble we have
with posters not following the simple plain text standards we have
now.
Yes, I have to confess, that is a very good point.
[shrug] Perhaps it's just part of a growth process. I am pretty
sure it's inevitable.
Usenet works just fine as it is.
[grin] For *some* definition of "works". Well, that's probably true, but it's not my point here. MY POINT
is getting you (or trying to, anyway) to examine exactly why you
are clinging to an ancient standard rather than embracing a new
and potentially useful one.
Two reasons: the ancient standard works, and the alleged new
standard doesn't seem to exist.
Yet, as you say above, we still have problems with people who don't
edit or who commit the Top Post Sin or whatever. I'm not sure that
mis-use of something by the ignorant indicates avoidance (should we
ban C because people write bad C?).
MAYBE, if I'm right that it's inevitable, it's smart to get in on
the ground floor in *creating* the standard.
--
|_ CJSonnack <Ch***@Sonnack.com> _____________| How's my programming? |
|_ http://www.Sonnack.com/ ___________________| Call: 1-800-DEV-NULL |
|_____________________________________________|___ ____________________|
Arthur J. O'Dwyer <aj*@nospam.andrew.cmu.edu> wrote: Unless you're proposing an *amazing* leap forward in natural-language
parsing within the above "numbered" years,
huh?
the responsibility for courteous HTML use remains on the user's
shoulders, not on his software.
Appears to be FUD.
A good client program would hide the HTML from the user, allowing the
user to only worry about how it looks and then transmit standard
compliant HTML.
Plain text does a great job of transmitting information from place
to place and person to person.
I agree. So, what do you think HTML is?
Re an earlier argument possibly by
someone else: No, I have no books on my shelf written in monospace,
but nor do I own any books with colored text, bold text interspersed
with regular, "smilies," or -- god forbid -- blinking text.
A client program could easily take such things out, if you didn't not
want to see them. The client program is what blinks the text, shows the
smily, etc. and could simply provide a preference to not show such
things to those who didn't want to see them.
This just seem like more FUD.
Like someone else also said: Text formatting is fine, but HTML sucks at
text formatting. :-)
CSS is excellent at text formatting and, these days, it quite
intertwined with HTML such that one can almost assume the inclusion of
CSS with the mere mention of HTML...and, in this discussion, with me,
one should.
"Arthur J. O'Dwyer" wrote: Keith is right: plain ASCII text is one of the easiest media to
format readably. It's not that plain text is easier to read than
proportionally formatted text; it's that one can more easily (to
use a resident Brit's phrase) make a pig's breakfast of
proportionally formatted stuff.
Well, two points. My personal experience is that plain ASCII text
is harder to format the way I want it (which I'd like to think is
easily readable). I spend more time than I'd like dealing with
line endings and ASCII emphasis.
I compare my amUSENET writings to the writing I do incompany for
tech docs or (RTF-based) email, and I get WAY more bang for my
buck with more powerful text features.
Indented paragraphs alone are worth their weight in gold, not to
mention auto-wrapping paragraphs and automatic justification.
Having the ability to do bullet lists would be nice, too!
Second point is that I'm not sure I want to live in a world
governed by the lowest common denominator. In fact, I KNOW I
don't.
For paper stuff, typewriting or even text editing is often cheaper
than word processing, too, as Keith points out. That's one reason
why those monographs were fixed-pitch -- cost.
Come again? It costs no more to use a variable-pitch font than it
does to use a fixed-pitch one. These days (and for quite some time
now), it's just typing. The software does the rest.
(Another reason, I suppose, would be the substance-over-aesthetics
attitude Keith described.)
I favor substance+aesthetics. Must be my art background talking.
I completely agree. Your newsreader, that lets you read HTML
mail -- does it let you compose HTML mail, too? Easily?
Trivially so. In fact, I had to turn it off.
But is it really *easier* to hit Ctrl-B instead of Shift-8 when
I mean *bold*, or Ctrl-U instead of Shift[-]?
Definitely (IMO, obviously). Control+alpha is much easier to me
than Shift+symbol. More importantly, it looks a million times
better. Maybe even a billion times! (-:
And if the editor were to really give you control of the process,
the composition of HTML messages could easily take much longer
than the composition of messages free from <meta> tags, hyperlinks,
and what-have-you.
Formatting a message carefully takes some time, period. If I just
want to type without any special formatting, then it hardly matters
what the editor outputs. But if I have something I can make more
clear using formatted text, that sounds like a win.
***HEAR HEAR!***
(See, couldn't that have been a hell of a lot more annoying
in HTML?)
Not really (to me). (I'm not easily annoyed by text.)
Nor do I really want to give spammers the ability to count hits
on Usenet postings, like HTML mail has given them the ability to
count hits on private email.
?? How do they do that? (Are you talking using images?)
I suspect that HTML will never make it into Usenet. Those
interested in making their correspondences look pretty are
usually simply not interested in public discourse.
[shrug] Time will tell!
--
|_ CJSonnack <Ch***@Sonnack.com> _____________| How's my programming? |
|_ http://www.Sonnack.com/ ___________________| Call: 1-800-DEV-NULL |
|_____________________________________________|___ ____________________|
CBFalconer wrote: the *fact* of the matter is that formatted text is *easier* to
read. This--hopefully--is not in dispute.
Yes it is. How many illegible html pages have you seen because
some imbecile carefully selected colors and whatnot that have no
contrast to you.
And you claim they would have been readable if only they'd used
a monospace font?
Also fancy background patterns that take all year to render.
Monospace fixes this, too?
Also little bitty fonts that require a Hubble scope to see.
What about little bitty monospace fonts?
Some of them even pack the html up as 6 bit encoded, making
things unsearchable and hard to filter.
You mean that Base64 stuff? Monospace can't fix that, either.
To make things readable simply use proper paragraphing, spelling,
punctuation, limit line length to about 65 chars, and use text.
Which is decimated in a 60-column window. HTML would wrap nicely.
--
|_ CJSonnack <Ch***@Sonnack.com> _____________| How's my programming? |
|_ http://www.Sonnack.com/ ___________________| Call: 1-800-DEV-NULL |
|_____________________________________________|___ ____________________|
Programmer Dude <Ch***@Sonnack.com> writes: "Arthur J. O'Dwyer" wrote:
[...] Nor do I really want to give spammers the ability to count hits
on Usenet postings, like HTML mail has given them the ability to
count hits on private email.
?? How do they do that? (Are you talking using images?)
Yes, they're called "web bugs". An e-mail message contains an IMG tag
with a URL specifying the location of the image. When you view the
message, your client downloads the image file so it can show it to
you. Voila, the server hosting the image sees an http connection from
your IP address, confirming that you've read the message. The images
are typically a single pixel matching the background color. They can
even customize the URL for each message so they can tell which copy of
the message was viewed.
<http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Marketing/web_bug.html>
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://www.sdsc.edu/~kst>
Schroedinger does Shakespeare: "To be *and* not to be"
(Note new e-mail address)
Programmer Dude <Ch***@Sonnack.com> writes: I compare my amUSENET writings to the writing I do incompany for
tech docs or (RTF-based) email, and I get WAY more bang for my
buck with more powerful text features.
Indented paragraphs alone are worth their weight in gold, not to
mention auto-wrapping paragraphs and automatic justification.
Having the ability to do bullet lists would be nice, too!
All of these are possible in plain text. My newsreader makes
them easy, too.
--
"The lusers I know are so clueless, that if they were dipped in clue
musk and dropped in the middle of pack of horny clues, on clue prom
night during clue happy hour, they still couldn't get a clue."
--Michael Girdwood, in the monastery
Programmer Dude wrote: CBFalconer wrote:
the *fact* of the matter is that formatted text is *easier* to
read. This--hopefully--is not in dispute.
Yes it is. How many illegible html pages have you seen because
some imbecile carefully selected colors and whatnot that have no
contrast to you.
And you claim they would have been readable if only they'd used
a monospace font?
Also fancy background patterns that take all year to render.
Monospace fixes this, too?
Also little bitty fonts that require a Hubble scope to see.
What about little bitty monospace fonts?
Some of them even pack the html up as 6 bit encoded, making
things unsearchable and hard to filter.
You mean that Base64 stuff? Monospace can't fix that, either.
To make things readable simply use proper paragraphing, spelling,
punctuation, limit line length to about 65 chars, and use text.
Which is decimated in a 60-column window. HTML would wrap nicely.
Fonts, colors, sizes etc. are none of the senders business. By
using plain text and limiting lines to 65 chars I can display it
in sizes, colors, fonts, etc. that SUIT ME when reading (which I
won't if it is in html).
--
Chuck F (cb********@yahoo.com) (cb********@worldnet.att.net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net> USE worldnet address!
Programmer Dude wrote: Richard Heathfield wrote:
...then not backing it up when called on it.
You and your "calling me on it."
You know what, Richard: put me in your killfile and *leave* me there
this time. I think we'll both be happier.
Let's just remember that this is all about your silly statement about buggy
whips. If you want to make silly statements and then not have to face any
criticisms of those statements, the correct procedure is for /you/ to put
/Usenet/ in your killfile, a strategy for which Alan Connor seems to be
setting a precedent with impressive alacrity.
I thought you were bright enough to accept justified criticism. Please don't
prove me wrong.
--
Richard Heathfield : bi****@eton.powernet.co.uk
"Usenet is a strange place." - Dennis M Ritchie, 29 July 1999.
C FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
K&R answers, C books, etc: http://users.powernet.co.uk/eton
Programmer Dude <Ch***@Sonnack.com> wrote: Interesting. I wasn't aware of that. I was aware there it had
been shown that sans-serif fonts (usually considered fatiguing
for lengthy text) are better on PC screens, because the serifs
turn out to be visual clutter at low rez (which suggests the odd
idea that a sans-serif, monospace font would be ideal...I just
don't think I *know* of one!)
You've never used a _real_ terminal? *Blink* Even most MS-DOS computers
originally had sans-serif monospaced fonts.
Richard
On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 16:58:06 -0600, Programmer Dude
<Ch***@Sonnack.com> wrote: Sheldon Simms wrote:
One good reason not to use HTML is that HTML sucks rocks if your
goal is to format text. It is not a text-formatting language and
never was intended to be.
It depends on your definition of text-formatting. If you define it
as "page layout" I agree it was never intended as such. If you
define it as "text attributes" then it clearly WAS originally
intended as such (hence those depreciated tags).
Those are tags whose value has declined?
:-)
--
Al Balmer
Balmer Consulting re************************@att.net
In <3F***************@Sonnack.com> Programmer Dude <Ch***@Sonnack.com> writes: Keith Thompson wrote:
Two reasons: the ancient standard works, and the alleged new
standard doesn't seem to exist.
Yet, as you say above, we still have problems with people who don't
edit or who commit the Top Post Sin or whatever. I'm not sure that
mis-use of something by the ignorant indicates avoidance (should we
ban C because people write bad C?).
MAYBE, if I'm right that it's inevitable, it's smart to get in on
the ground floor in *creating* the standard.
I just googled and I find that Brad Templeton & I (and others, of
course) were having exactly this same argument in
news.software.readers in January of 1997. I am unaware of any
rich-text or markup standard for news postings having appeared in the
intervening years. If there is a proposal, it has obviously not been
adopted.
That suggests to me that the inevitability of this can certainly be
doubted, from which I take a modicum of comfort. You, Chris, might
consider why it hasn't happened if people have been talking about it
for so long. (If you need an analogy -- and maybe more than an
analogy -- think "interactive TV".)
Pat
followups not set since the thread seems to be dying anyway...
Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.org> wrote: Programmer Dude <Ch***@Sonnack.com> writes: "Arthur J. O'Dwyer" wrote:
[...] Nor do I really want to give spammers the ability to count hits
on Usenet postings, like HTML mail has given them the ability to
count hits on private email.
?? How do they do that? (Are you talking using images?)
Yes, they're called "web bugs".
So, why would you allow your client application to make a connection
back to somewhere as it was attempting to render the page?
Why would you even use a client application that wouldn't allow you to
disable such things?
--
CBFalconer wrote: Fonts, colors, sizes etc. are none of the senders business.
As a writer and an artist, I disagree 1000%! Those attributes
are a part of my creative expressive toolkit (for in the hands
of a knowledgable user, they can add a great deal to the
information content).
By using plain text and limiting lines to 65 chars I can
display it in sizes, colors, fonts, etc. that SUIT ME when
reading (which I won't if it is in html).
Actually, you can tell your renderer to ignore some or all
the HTML tags. You can define substitute fonts and even specify
a line length. (One nice thing about HTML is the <p> idea. That
allows all users to view decent paragraphs in THEIR prefered line
length, be it 40 cols or 120.)
I still see advantages and no disadvantages. You can disable as
much of the HTML as you like. Or not.
Seems win-win to me. te*********@BUSThotmailE.Rcom writes: Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.org> wrote: Programmer Dude <Ch***@Sonnack.com> writes: "Arthur J. O'Dwyer" wrote:
[...] > Nor do I really want to give spammers the ability to count hits
> on Usenet postings, like HTML mail has given them the ability to
> count hits on private email.
?? How do they do that? (Are you talking using images?)
Yes, they're called "web bugs".
So, why would you allow your client application to make a connection
back to somewhere as it was attempting to render the page?
Why would you even use a client application that wouldn't allow you to
disable such things?
Well, I don't (the client I currently use doesn't even render fonts or
images), but that wasn't your point.
I might use a client that's sensible about such things (though it's
not clear how to distinguish between a web bug and an ordinary image),
but a lot of people would inevitably use clients that emphasize
convenience over security.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://www.sdsc.edu/~kst>
Schroedinger does Shakespeare: "To be *and* not to be"
(Note new e-mail address)
Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.org> wrote: te*********@BUSThotmailE.Rcom writes: Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.org> wrote: Programmer Dude <Ch***@Sonnack.com> writes:
> "Arthur J. O'Dwyer" wrote:
[...]
> > Nor do I really want to give spammers the ability to count hits
> > on Usenet postings, like HTML mail has given them the ability to
> > count hits on private email.
>
> ?? How do they do that? (Are you talking using images?)
Yes, they're called "web bugs".
So, why would you allow your client application to make a connection
back to somewhere as it was attempting to render the page?
Why would you even use a client application that wouldn't allow you to
disable such things?
Well, I don't (the client I currently use doesn't even render fonts or
images), but that wasn't your point.
I might use a client that's sensible about such things
Cool.
(though it's not clear how to distinguish between a web bug and
an ordinary image),
True.
It is quite likely that I would simply disable the automatic grabbing of
any extra content that someone wanted to include and only obtain the
content of those messages that I believed to be trustworthy.
but a lot of people would inevitably use clients that emphasize
convenience over security.
As should be their choice.
But, there should be no reason that a well designed client could not
provide both.
--
Richard Heathfield wrote: You know what, Richard: put me in your killfile and *leave* me there
this time. I think we'll both be happier.
Let's just remember that this is all about your silly statement about
buggy whips.
No Richard, this is about yet another unwarranted attack from you. An
attack which adds little or nothing to the discussion. Absolutely
nothing in this sub moves the discussion anywhere. Compare that to the
posts of your fellow clc-ers.
If you want to make silly statements and then not have to face any
criticisms of those statements,...
What criticism? A criticism necessarily defines why the Wrong Thing
is Wrong. You didn't make a criticism, you made an attack. And, as
in the last few times, you are again, Just Plain Wrong.
But let's look at the issue. First up, the Buggy Whip metaphor.
Buggy Whips. Common, default tool of their day. Very useful and of
good design. Have fallen out of use due to changes in technology,
but are still used today by some (and they work as well as they always
did). Nothing *wrong* with a buggy whip, it's just been superceeded.
TTY Text (i.e. 80 colums, straight text). Common, default tool of
its day. Very useful and of good design. Has fallen out of use due
to changes in technology, but still used today by some (and it works
as well as it always did). Nothing *wrong* with TTY, it's just been
superceeded.
Seems a good and accurate comparison. Certainly good enough to make
a metaphor.
Next up, "Your desire to remain in the era of buggy whips not
withstanding".
Note the other poster's sentence to which this was a reply:
}} Not for most Usenet readers, and certainly not for most readers
}} comp.lang.c.
So, the OP presumes to speak on behalf of most of amUSENET and most
readers in comp.lang.c (and MAY even speak correctly). The reply:
} Your desire to remain in the era of buggy whips not withstanding,
} the *fact* of the matter is that formatted text is *easier* to
} read. This--hopefully--is not in dispute.
Can you see that the "Your" above binds to "most ... readers"?
Further, can you or anyone *deny* that comp.lang.c strongly
militates the TTY Text standard? Can you see that that is a
*desire* to remain in the era of that standard? Can you now
see, through the metaphor, that I simply spoke the absolute
honest truth? Can you see the absolute *lack* of slur.
I thought you were bright enough to accept justified criticism.
Justified, always. Unwarranted attacks, never. An you should know
me well enough to know I do not take kindly to unwarranted attacks. te*********@BUSThotmailE.Rcom wrote: Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.org> wrote: Programmer Dude <Ch***@Sonnack.com> writes: "Arthur J. O'Dwyer" wrote:
[...] > Nor do I really want to give spammers the ability to count
> hits on Usenet postings, like HTML mail has given them the
> ability to count hits on private email.
?? How do they do that? (Are you talking using images?)
Yes, they're called "web bugs".
So, why would you allow your client application to make a
connection back to somewhere as it was attempting to render the
page?
Why would you even use a client application that wouldn't allow
you to disable such things?
In case you hadn't noticed, most text editors/viewers don't have
such dangerous abilities, thus there is no need to disable them in
the first place.
--
Chuck F (cb********@yahoo.com) (cb********@worldnet.att.net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net> USE worldnet address!
Richard Heathfield <do******@address.co.uk.invalid> wrote: Programmer Dude on site wrote:
An you should know
me well enough to know I do not take kindly to unwarranted attacks.
Then don't make them.
Pot Meet Kettle
--
CBFalconer <cb********@yahoo.com> wrote: te*********@BUSThotmailE.Rcom wrote: Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.org> wrote: Programmer Dude <Ch***@Sonnack.com> writes:
> "Arthur J. O'Dwyer" wrote:
[...]
> > Nor do I really want to give spammers the ability to count
> > hits on Usenet postings, like HTML mail has given them the
> > ability to count hits on private email.
>
> ?? How do they do that? (Are you talking using images?)
Yes, they're called "web bugs".
So, why would you allow your client application to make a
connection back to somewhere as it was attempting to render the
page?
Why would you even use a client application that wouldn't allow
you to disable such things?
In case you hadn't noticed, most text editors/viewers don't have
such dangerous abilities, thus there is no need to disable them in
the first place.
You are apparently ignoring the inevitability of a USENET on which HTML
is common and those who wish to continue to use it would be required to
move to clients which supports HTML.
This, of course, does assume that USENET survives to make the
transition...which is by no means guaranteed either. What might replace
it? The most likely candidate at the moment, are web based discussion
boards.
I know of at least one founder of USENET who hates everything that is
USENET and advocates it's demise. I believe he works for Apple Computer
now and helps run their mailing lists (lists.apple.com).
--
On 11 Nov 2003 09:53:44 -0800 Ch***@Sonnack.com (Programmer Dude on site) wrote: CBFalconer wrote:
Fonts, colors, sizes etc. are none of the senders business.
As a writer and an artist, I disagree 1000%! Those attributes
are a part of my creative expressive toolkit (for in the hands
of a knowledgable user, they can add a great deal to the
information content).
The problem here is that most posters (including myself) are *not*
knowledgeable about what is readable to the majority of people. With
plain ASCII text there is far less for people to mess up.
By using plain text and limiting lines to 65 chars I can
display it in sizes, colors, fonts, etc. that SUIT ME when
reading (which I won't if it is in html).
Actually, you can tell your renderer to ignore some or all
the HTML tags. You can define substitute fonts and even specify
a line length. (One nice thing about HTML is the <p> idea. That
allows all users to view decent paragraphs in THEIR prefered line
length, be it 40 cols or 120.)
You are assuming that most people understand how to configure there
software. You are also assuming that the most commonly used software
allows such configuration to be done in a simple manner.
I still see advantages and no disadvantages. You can disable as
much of the HTML as you like. Or not.
Seems win-win to me.
How about the fact that it would take a lot longer to download and that
for people stuck with a maximum 33K download speed. I know areas where
broadband is not available and if BT choose to use a DACS on your phone
line 33K is the maximum you will get.
It used to take long enough for me on a modem when I was regularly
getting 44K connections.
--
Mark Gordon
Paid to be a Geek & a Senior Software Developer
Although my email address says spamtrap, it is real and I read it. te*********@BUSThotmailE.Rcom writes:
[...] You are apparently ignoring the inevitability of a USENET on which HTML
is common and those who wish to continue to use it would be required to
move to clients which supports HTML.
We're not ignoring it, we're denying it. We're not failing to
understand your point, we just think you're wrong.
We've seen a major transition of e-mail from a medium that only
supported plain text to one that also supports HTML. We simply are
not seeing any signs of a similar transition for Usenet, though the
idea has been under discussion for years. Usenet has evolved
mechanisms for transferring binary files, but there just hasn't been
any significant demand for HTML. If this transition is inevitable,
why hasn't it started?
[snip]
I know of at least one founder of USENET who hates everything that is
USENET and advocates it's demise. I believe he works for Apple Computer
now and helps run their mailing lists (lists.apple.com).
I don't know who you're referring to, but he, like everyone else, is
free not to use Usenet if he doesn't want to.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://www.sdsc.edu/~kst>
Schroedinger does Shakespeare: "To be *and* not to be"
(Note new e-mail address)
Since the original "buggy whip" comment was directed at me, I'll jump in.
The comment in question was:
} Your desire to remain in the era of buggy whips not withstanding,
} the *fact* of the matter is that formatted text is *easier* to
} read. This--hopefully--is not in dispute.
I found that comment misguided, incorrect, and mildly annoying, but
not deeply offensive. (I've been seriously insulted in this newsgroup
recently; the "buggy whip" remark wasn't even close.)
I suggest not wasting any more time arguing about who insulted whom in
a discussion that's way off-topic anyway.
Let's all just agree that I'm right and everyone else is wrong, and
move on from there.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://www.sdsc.edu/~kst>
Schroedinger does Shakespeare: "To be *and* not to be"
(Note new e-mail address)
Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.org> wrote: te*********@BUSThotmailE.Rcom writes:
[...] You are apparently ignoring the inevitability of a USENET on which HTML
is common and those who wish to continue to use it would be required to
move to clients which supports HTML.
We're not ignoring it, we're denying it. We're not failing to
understand your point, we just think you're wrong.
We've seen a major transition of e-mail from a medium that only
supported plain text to one that also supports HTML. We simply are
not seeing any signs of a similar transition for Usenet, though the
idea has been under discussion for years. Usenet has evolved
mechanisms for transferring binary files, but there just hasn't been
any significant demand for HTML. If this transition is inevitable,
why hasn't it started?
It has via the support for HTML in some usenet clients.
--
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 20:23:50 GMT, Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.org>
wrote: We've seen a major transition of e-mail from a medium that only
supported plain text to one that also supports HTML.
What we (or at least I) haven't seen, however, is any major transition
to email that actually needs or even effectively uses HTML. The vast
majority of HTML email I see is simply plain text with a bunch of
tags. The usual goals of email and usenet posting are quick
communication of relatively short messages. HTML adds little if
anything to further those goals, and in fact, usually detracts from
them.
In companies where I work, I sometimes see email (usually posted by
the HR people) which comes in bright colors, with flowers twining
around the border, and attention-grabbing fonts. The reaction from the
recipients is often "Obviously they don't have any real work to do."
Reaction from the network admins is usually "Damn, another gigabyte of
storage gone."
--
Al Balmer
Balmer Consulting re************************@att.net
Keith Thompson wrote: Let's all just agree that I'm right and everyone else is wrong,
and move on from there.
Okay, I agree with you that I'm right and everyone else is wrong.
Movin' on..... (-:
--
|_ CJSonnack <Ch***@Sonnack.com> _____________| How's my programming? |
|_ http://www.Sonnack.com/ ___________________| Call: 1-800-DEV-NULL |
|_____________________________________________|___ ____________________|
Keith Thompson wrote: (Are you talking using images?)
Yes, they're called "web bugs". An e-mail message contains an IMG
tag with a URL specifying the location of the image.
That's what I thought. Simple solution: turn off images. I think
I mentioned this in one of my first posts....
They can even customize the URL for each message so they can tell
which copy of the message was viewed.
Yep. Adding stuff to the end is one way it's done: http://www.BadPeople.com/images/BadImage.gif?u=1234567
Virtual paths are another: http://www.BadPeople.com/images/webb...7/BadImage.gif
In reality, "/images/webbug" is a CGI program. The rest is just
virtual path passed into that program.
--
|_ CJSonnack <Ch***@Sonnack.com> _____________| How's my programming? |
|_ http://www.Sonnack.com/ ___________________| Call: 1-800-DEV-NULL |
|_____________________________________________|___ ____________________|
Mark Gordon wrote: As a writer and an artist, [...] Those attributes are a part of
my creative expressive toolkit (for in the hands of a knowledgable
user, they can add a great deal to the information content).
The problem here is that most posters (including myself) are *not*
knowledgeable about what is readable to the majority of people.
Takes a wise man to know his limits.
Simple solution: set your HTML reader/writer to emit basically what
you type. Of even turn off the HTML.
You are assuming that most people understand how to configure there
software. You are also assuming that the most commonly used software
allows such configuration to be done in a simple manner.
Perhaps an area that needs growth, yes. But I dislike, very much,
living in a world limited by lower common denominators. Other
people's inability to handle "X" shouldn't prevent me from it if
I am able.
How about the fact that it would take a lot longer to download..
A *lot* longer? I doubt that. Maybe a little bit longer, but
compared to over quoting and OT and SPAM,.... is it really that
bad?
--
|_ CJSonnack <Ch***@Sonnack.com> _____________| How's my programming? |
|_ http://www.Sonnack.com/ ___________________| Call: 1-800-DEV-NULL |
|_____________________________________________|___ ____________________|
Les Cargill wrote: The existing system known as Usenet ranges to serve people from
those using HTML emabled readers to those using Tin. The Tin
folks will not understand HTML very easily.
They looking for a heart? ;-|
But seriously, to pre-answer a question down thread, I suspect
the variety of readers is the reason it hasn't caught on, yet.
I continue to suspect it will, though.
[shrug] Time will tell.
--
|_ CJSonnack <Ch***@Sonnack.com> _____________| How's my programming? |
|_ http://www.Sonnack.com/ ___________________| Call: 1-800-DEV-NULL |
|_____________________________________________|___ ____________________| te*********@BUSThotmailE.Rcom wrote: If this transition is inevitable, why hasn't it started?
It has via the support for HTML in some usenet clients.
Netscape's had it for years.
--
|_ CJSonnack <Ch***@Sonnack.com> _____________| How's my programming? |
|_ http://www.Sonnack.com/ ___________________| Call: 1-800-DEV-NULL |
|_____________________________________________|___ ____________________|
Richard Bos wrote: (which suggests the odd idea that a sans-serif, monospace font
would be ideal...I just don't think I *know* of one!)
You've never used a _real_ terminal? *Blink* Even most MS-DOS
computers originally had sans-serif monospaced fonts.
Yes. But the name of that font?.....
It was probably a basic 5x7 ROM encoded display font, ya know?
--
|_ CJSonnack <Ch***@Sonnack.com> _____________| How's my programming? |
|_ http://www.Sonnack.com/ ___________________| Call: 1-800-DEV-NULL |
|_____________________________________________|___ ____________________|
Ben Pfaff wrote: Indented paragraphs alone are worth their weight in gold, not to
mention auto-wrapping paragraphs and automatic justification.
Having the ability to do bullet lists would be nice, too!
All of these are possible in plain text.
Truly indented? I don't mean indented with spaces or tabs.
Auto-wrapping? Sure, so long as you didn't put any hard returns
in (something HTML would ignore).
Automatic Justification? Yeah, I've seen it in text. Ugly!!
Bullet Lists? By hand, sure.
--
|_ CJSonnack <Ch***@Sonnack.com> _____________| How's my programming? |
|_ http://www.Sonnack.com/ ___________________| Call: 1-800-DEV-NULL |
|_____________________________________________|___ ____________________|
Patrick Foley wrote: I am unaware of any rich-text or markup standard for news postings
having appeared in the intervening years.
Basic HTML would do fine.
If there is a proposal, it has obviously not been adopted.
USENET is not, I suspect a growing entity (in the development sense).
I would not expect to see RFCs extending or changing it, but I
wouldn't be surprised if de facto standards occurred. (My contention
is that they ARE occurring.)
That suggests to me that the inevitability of this can certainly be
doubted, from which I take a modicum of comfort. You, Chris, might
consider why it hasn't happened if people have been talking about it
for so long.
Well, there's that "desire to stay in the era of the buggy whip"
thing, but look a bit upthread at my reply to Les Cargill. There
are a wide variety of platforms and readers out there, and I think
it's just going to take more time than a handful of years.
followups not set since the thread seems to be dying anyway...
Yeah, I've said my bit, tried to support it (done okay I think).
Time to move on!
--
|_ CJSonnack <Ch***@Sonnack.com> _____________| How's my programming? |
|_ http://www.Sonnack.com/ ___________________| Call: 1-800-DEV-NULL |
|_____________________________________________|___ ____________________|
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 16:52:48 -0600
Programmer Dude <Ch***@Sonnack.com> wrote: Mark Gordon wrote:
As a writer and an artist, [...] Those attributes are a part of
my creative expressive toolkit (for in the hands of a knowledgable
user, they can add a great deal to the information content).
The problem here is that most posters (including myself) are *not*
knowledgeable about what is readable to the majority of people.
Takes a wise man to know his limits.
Simple solution: set your HTML reader/writer to emit basically what
you type. Of even turn off the HTML.
Please note your previous paragraph and note that the majority of people
are not wise. Then consider what it means for the likely formatting.
You are assuming that most people understand how to configure there
software. You are also assuming that the most commonly used software
allows such configuration to be done in a simple manner.
Perhaps an area that needs growth, yes.
Alternatively don't add a need for the extra options then no one needs
to learn how to use them and no one needs to write them.
But I dislike, very much,
living in a world limited by lower common denominators. Other
people's inability to handle "X" shouldn't prevent me from it if
I am able.
Why should your ability to cope with it exclude those who either by
choice or lack of resources are not able to cope? For example I know one
person who has only upgraded from a 486 to a Pentium based computer
because we acquired one for free for him. Should he be excluded from
Usenet due to lack of resources just because you want HTML? How about the fact that it would take a lot longer to download..
A *lot* longer? I doubt that. Maybe a little bit longer, but
compared to over quoting and OT and SPAM,.... is it really that
bad?
Currently I have the option of using a news server that does not accept
HTML posting, this on its own eliminates a chunk of spam and attempts by
viruses to spread themselves without me even having to get as far as
downloading the headers. So that combined with the extra bandwidth
required for HTML over plain ASCII does lead to a noticeable saving.
As I've said, if you want *bold* rendered in *bold* and _underlined_
rendered as _underlined_ then you can get a news reader today for free
that will do it. Then you can see such formatting and include it in your
posts *without* enforcing anything on anyone else.
Every news ready I have used does formating for me.
If I want more advanced formatting I have the option of using any text
editor I want so I can have auto-indent and anything else. So apart from
the fact it is not HTML you *can* have easy to use formatting of the
type you have described without the need for HTML or anything else
beyond what we already have.
--
Mark Gordon
Paid to be a Geek & a Senior Software Developer
Although my email address says spamtrap, it is real and I read it.
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 16:43:44 -0600
Programmer Dude <Ch***@Sonnack.com> wrote: Ben Pfaff wrote:
Indented paragraphs alone are worth their weight in gold, not to
mention auto-wrapping paragraphs and automatic justification.
Having the ability to do bullet lists would be nice, too!
All of these are possible in plain text.
Truly indented? I don't mean indented with spaces or tabs.
What is wrong with spaces for the indent if the editor handles it for
you? If I tell my reader to use vim or emacs as the editor (it supports
using any editor I want) then I'm sure it will handle it for me.
Auto-wrapping? Sure, so long as you didn't put any hard returns
in (something HTML would ignore).
It's not perfect, but I've just resized my text window for reading to
about 20 characters and it is still perfectly readable.
Automatic Justification? Yeah, I've seen it in text. Ugly!!
I don't find a ragged right edge to be a problem. Also, this client is
applying the requested justification without any problems.
Bullet Lists? By hand, sure.
I'm sure it can be done in emacs or vim, either of which I can use as an
editor for my client. So that just needs better editors as part of the
client and does not require moving to HTML.
If people stick to standard quoting conventions then SW can rewrap
quoted text (this client does it on posting a reply) so it is entirely
possible to write a client that will format the displayed message in a
nice (to you) proportional font using kerning to get a straight right
edge on the justified text. It just needs applying the type of
heuristics that modern word processors use to do auto-formatting as you
type.
--
Mark Gordon
Paid to be a Geek & a Senior Software Developer
Although my email address says spamtrap, it is real and I read it.
Keith Thompson wrote: te*********@BUSThotmailE.Rcom writes:
[...] You are apparently ignoring the inevitability of a USENET on which HTML
is common and those who wish to continue to use it would be required to
move to clients which supports HTML.
We're not ignoring it, we're denying it. We're not failing to
understand your point, we just think you're wrong.
We've seen a major transition of e-mail from a medium that only
supported plain text to one that also supports HTML.
It's interesting that you should say that.
It is quite rare for me to send emails except in reply to those who send
them to me (some would say that even the replies are pretty rare right now,
but you can blame that on spam). My correspondents tend to be either people
asking for help (I wish they would use the newsgroups, and I urge them to
use the newsgroups, but sometimes they /don't/ use the newsgroups), or
people I know already. The people I know use ordinary plain text email. The
rest - the people asking for help - are a mixture; some HTML, some text.
I read my email in vi (well, all right, vim). If I *can't* read an email
because the tags stop me from doing so effectively, I have a very simple
solution - I just delete the email (assuming the spam filter didn't do it
for me). What I /don't/ do is send a reply asking the person to fix their
email account. If they want to send HTML email, that's entirely up to them.
And if I choose not to read it, that's entirely up to me. I don't bother
complaining because, compared to the volume of spam I get, HTML email is a
minor annoyance.
Same applies in Usenet. The HTML postings tend to come from those asking for
help. The plain text replies are coming from those giving it. If by
choosing to post in HTML format those who seek help make life harder for
those who give it, then those who give it will be less willing to give it.
We simply are
not seeing any signs of a similar transition for Usenet, though the
idea has been under discussion for years. Usenet has evolved
mechanisms for transferring binary files, but there just hasn't been
any significant demand for HTML. If this transition is inevitable,
why hasn't it started?
Because it isn't as inevitable as it was supposed to be? :-)
I know of at least one founder of USENET who hates everything that is
USENET and advocates it's demise. I believe he works for Apple Computer
now and helps run their mailing lists (lists.apple.com).
Death Of Usenet Imminent! Film at 11!
I don't know who you're referring to, but he, like everyone else, is
free not to use Usenet if he doesn't want to.
Quite.
--
Richard Heathfield : bi****@eton.powernet.co.uk
"Usenet is a strange place." - Dennis M Ritchie, 29 July 1999.
C FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
K&R answers, C books, etc: http://users.powernet.co.uk/eton
Programmer Dude <Ch***@Sonnack.com> wrote: Richard Bos wrote:
(which suggests the odd idea that a sans-serif, monospace font
would be ideal...I just don't think I *know* of one!)
You've never used a _real_ terminal? *Blink* Even most MS-DOS
computers originally had sans-serif monospaced fonts.
Yes. But the name of that font?.....
It was probably a basic 5x7 ROM encoded display font, ya know?
Probably (though it more likely would've been 8x10), and had no name.
But fire up any MS-Windows machine and ask for FixedSys. It, like many
others such as Terminal (MS-specific again, I suspect), Lucida Console
and OCR-A only have serifs on narrow letters (i, j and l). Letter Gothic
does have serifs, but they're barely noticable.
In fact, the only noticably serifed monospaced font I have is Courier.
Richard This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion. |
