Asking if elements in struct arre zero

[Richard Heathfield]

An you should know
me well enough to know I do not take kindly to unwarranted attacks.

Then don't make them.

 

[Mark Gordon]

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).[/QUOTE]

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.

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.

 

[Guest]

Then don't make them.

Pot Meet Kettle


--

 

[Guest]

:
[...]
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).



--

 

[Keith Thompson]

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]

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.

 

[Guest]

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.


--

 

[Alan Balmer]

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."

 

[Programmer Dude]

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..... (-:

 

[Programmer Dude]

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/webbug/1234567/BadImage.gif

In reality, "/images/webbug" is a CGI program. The rest is just
virtual path passed into that program.

 

[Programmer Dude]

It has via the support for HTML in some usenet clients.

Netscape's had it for years.

 

[Programmer Dude]

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.

 

[Programmer Dude]

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?

 

[Programmer Dude]

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.

 

[Programmer Dude]

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!

 

[Programmer Dude]

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?

 

[Mark Gordon]

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.

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?

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]

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.

 

[Richard Heathfield]

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?

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 Bos]

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