|
|
Posted by Giles on 10/03/82 11:36
On 2006-01-04 15:24:40 +0000, NRen2k5 <napsterneorenegade@hotmail.com> said:
> Justin wrote:
>> Why do you want to add HTML to a post? There's no reason for it.
>
> Two reasons that I can recall right now:
> - To add emphasis to what I'm writing.
Can't you do that in your writing?
> - To maintain formatting in quotes from web pages.
If the formatting is that important, why not just give the url?
> Without HTML, I have to type like a borg and screw around to make it
> look right.
But it doesn't look right, at least to anyone using a dedicated
newsreader, rather than some hybrid email with news on the side reader.
In fact it looks awful as we get endless html code, unless the
newsreader is savvy enough to strip it out.
This is why you can't just decide that you are going to use html and
damn the existing standard. Usenet is plain text based and that is what
dedicated newsreaders are set up to see. I would be surprised if your
desire to scatter your prose with bold and italic will change that.
> With HTML, typing up my message - with emphasis added, and proper quotes
> - is just as easy as in any word processor made in the last twenty years.
I would have thought that twenty years was a bit far. Did you try to
use emphases in the old DOS wordprocessors?
Anyhow, use of emphases in any writing should be kept to an absolute
minimum, I'd think, unless the chosen font is comic sans, in which case
emphasise away to your heart's content as you are already condemned to
one of the lower circles of hell.
Top posting has been explained by others, but for what it is worth, top
posting does make posts very hard to follow and even harder to respond
to. A reply following the relevant part of the quoted post (edited to
remove irrelevant parts) makes reading and responding easier and
maintains the sense of the conversation. Because it is a conversation
(even if a rude and frustrating one at times) one should have respect
for what aids the conversation, rather than what one or other of the
participants wants to do because he or she prefers it for themself.
This may be why you got a strong response. It looked like you were
deliberately imposing your fancies on the way the conversation took
place, despite knowing otherwise. If you genuinely weren't aware of the
plain text standard and conventions on top posting, fair enough. We'll
blame the producers of 'newsreaders' that place the insertion point
automatically at the top of the reply <cough>Microsoft</cough>
<cough>Thunderbird</cough>.
Giles
>
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|