|
Posted by earle robinson on January 26, 2008, 9:39 am
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
(Please mask my return address. Thank you.)
Both yahoo (by default) and gmail (by option) permit sending mail in plain
text rather than html.
-er
|
|
Posted by Rick Merrill on February 11, 2008, 12:54 pm
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
earle robinson wrote:
> (Please mask my return address. Thank you.)
>
>
>
> Both yahoo (by default) and gmail (by option) permit sending mail in plain
> text rather than html.
>
ASCII (now ISO) is the codes used for text, including the text in HTML
code. What on earth distinction is the 'subject' trying to make?
|
|
Posted by Steve Kostecke on February 11, 2008, 7:45 pm
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
> earle robinson wrote:
>
>> Both yahoo (by default) and gmail (by option) permit sending mail in
>> plain text rather than html.
>
> ASCII (now ISO) is the codes used for text, including the text in HTML
> code. What on earth distinction is the 'subject' trying to make?
The subject line is probably referring to the endless
"unformatted-ASCII-text vs HTML-encrusted-text on Usenet" debate.
HTML is a problem for those of us who use text-mode/console news
readers such as slrn, tin, rn, et al.
--
"I am a citizen, not a consumer. I am a human being, not a revenue source."
Public Key at gopher://kostecke.net or `finger steve@kostecke.net`
|
|
Posted by Robert Bonomi on February 11, 2008, 9:50 pm
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options >earle robinson wrote:
>> (Please mask my return address. Thank you.)
>>
>>
>>
>> Both yahoo (by default) and gmail (by option) permit sending mail in plain
>> text rather than html.
>>
>
>ASCII (now ISO) is the codes used for text, including the text in HTML
>code. What on earth distinction is the 'subject' trying to make?
>
"ASCII silly question,
get a stupid ANSI" <grin>
A "plain-text" message, consisting of *ONLY* single-byte symbols drawn from
a set of 95 printable characters, plus 'space', and a line-terminator. as
one was limited to on an old fashioned 'dumb-ass key terminal', vs. a message
with approximately the same 'printable' _content_, but including a large
number of "non-printing" multi-byte symbols that are intended to convey
information about the 'appearance' (aka 'style' or 'look and feel') of the
message, and which generally fail to convey any significant additional
_meaning_.
When an HTML-encrufted USENET message is viewed using a traditional WYSIEWYG
(What You See Is Exactly What You Received) reader program (e.g. 'trn', 'rn'),
one sees each and every supposedly non-printing 'multi-byte symbol' as a
series of "printing" single-byte symbols, with one printing symbol for each
byte of the multi-byte symbol.
***** Moderator's Note *****
There's another problem: even though this message is not marked as
containing HTML, some borken readers _will_ render the following:
<html><head><title>Hot French Wines</title></head><body><h1>Hot French
Wines waiting for you at <a href="http://www.vatican.va">The Lure of
Limousin</a></body></html>.
... and that fact causes spammers to put html into everything,
including Velveeta sent to newsgroups which specifiically forbid html.
Bill Horne
Temporary Moderator
(Please put [Telecom] in the subject line of your post, or I may never
see it. Thanks!)
|
| Similar Threads | Posted | | [Telecom] ASCII vs. HTML (was Re: 1+10D, was 11X and N11 Codes) | January 19, 2008, 6:58 pm |
| [Telecom] HTML in posts | December 25, 2007, 10:00 am |
| Re: HTML newsletter (was Re: Telecom Update #561 (Cana | January 9, 2007, 10:23 am |
| ASCII / Baudot Article [telecom] | April 22, 2008, 5:36 pm |
| ASCII art at its finest | September 21, 2007, 4:25 pm |
| Followup to http://TELECOM_Digest_Online2005-1/1721.html Article | March 8, 2006, 3:27 am |
| Re: [Telecom] 1+10D, was 11X and N11 Codes | January 21, 2008, 7:40 am |
| [Telecom] Re: 1+10D, was 11X and N11 Codes | January 17, 2008, 4:24 pm |
| [TELECOM] Re: 1+10D, was 11X and N11 Codes | January 14, 2008, 9:09 pm |
| Re: [Telecom] 11X and N11 Codes (was 911 not universal) | November 29, 2007, 4:15 pm |
|
|
![Re: [Telecom] ASCII vs. HTML (was Re: 1+10D, was 11X and N11 Codes)](/images/header.jpg)
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML site map