Re: [Dev-C++] HTML vs plain text

[Bob W. <bo...@ph...>]

Santy,

> It seems to me that this is becoming something different than a 'religi=
ous
> war' about 'HTML vs plan text'... It's near a 'M$ vs non-M$ war' right
now,

Not for me. I could care less about either Microsoft or Linux or UNIX or =
any
other operating system and/or the development environment. It just so
happens that the discussion is revolving around a couple of Microsoft
products because dev-C++ is directed at the Microsoft environment.

> * - Even in the case that we're using M$ Win XX as our OS... Why am I
> suppossed to use M$ Outlook / Outlook Express as email client? Shouldn'=
t I
> use any other emails clients?

You should use whatever you desire that does the job for you. The discuss=
ion
here is more of one of inclusion vs. exclusion. The text-only crowd wants=
 to
exclude any text formatting capabilities. The thrust should be to make th=
e
environment of the archive server more robust or more inclusive.

> * - If you think that M$ is doing things better than anyone else... Why
> aren't you using M$ development tools?

I am using several different development tools one of which is Visual C++=
. I
have no love for Microsoft or any of its product lines. I personally disp=
ise
*Word*. At the same time I believe that to make something *bold* by the u=
se
of encapsulating asterisks is an affectation in the day and age of  WYSIW=
YG
word processors and desktop publishing tools.

> * - Statistics are not good in most cases, so saying that "pyschologica=
l,
> physiological, and marketing studies have demonstrated that '>' chars a=
re
> worse than 'tabs' or 'HTML tags'" is not a big point to have in mind...
BTW,
> just one question: Who made the studies?

Ye gads! I cannot give you a list, but I can tell you that my first
introduction to the topic was in my undergraduate days when I studied
typography, layout, and design. It is a subject which has kept my interes=
t
for decades, and I have been drawn to studies and reports whenever I came
across them.

> * - If you already know that this mailing list is different than the re=
st
of
> mailing lists that you are suscribed to: because we use different tools=
,
> because we use different and heterogeneus environments, because people
here
> think different from others, because whatever... Why are you trying to
> change the list in order to fit to your needs?

I am not trying to change anything to fit "my" needs. Rather I have raise=
d
some questions as to the wisdom of intentionally prohibiting or ignoring
messages with formated text.

> I don't want to flame you (please belive me), I just only want to point
out
> that most of us think different than you and we're using different syst=
ems
> that yours (note that many people has replied from 'text side' and not =
so
> many from 'HTML side' ;oD), so please, please, as some people has point=
ed
> out before on the list (I think Colin Laplace also said so): try to avo=
id
> the use of HTML in this list...

You have not flamed me and neither has anyone else. I have been neither
offended nor slighted by any responses to my posts on this topic. I agree
that people are using different systems, and that it is a personal choice.
However, I maintain, correctly IMHO, that it is wrong headed to not inclu=
de
the formatting capabilities of the embedded email software in the Microso=
ft
operating systems in a forum/newsgroup that is dedicated to the discussio=
n
and promotion of a piece of software that is targeted to the Microsoft
environment.

The whole discussion started with a comment that "html is evil." It is no=
t.
Like guns, nefarious individuals can do evil things with it.

> BTW, "G=FCttenberg" is a good clue for something that will make a BIG
> revolution in communications, but I don't think that HTML emails are su=
ch
a
> big revolution (and I'm not the only one)...

My "G=FCttenberg" clue didn't have anything to do with something "BIG." R=
ather
it had to do with typefaces. Specifically it was directed a numerous
comments that they only formatting that the emails in question had were a
few instances of bold face. Clearly that was not the case.

As far as I am concerned, the html-plain text discussion ends with this
post, unless someone keeps it alive.

Regards,

Bob