On Mon, 22 Nov 1999, Chris Anderson wrote:

> But there is already: html.  Freely available readers have been around for
> years, on just about every platform, and they handle unicode as well.  You
> may not like it, but it's still there.  You don't need to translate all of
> the other formats you mention, just as you don't translate them now for
> ASCII.
>
> A better question is when most people will upgrade to a freely available
> 8-bit or unicode aware transport agent.  Many people run sendmail -- which
> has only in the last few years become 8-bit compliant.

A typical Micro$loth Outlook Express mail message which gets dumped in my
mailbox has 1. A Text/Plain attachment. 2. An HTML version of the same
attachment. How's that for efficient use of a dwindling resource
(bandwidth)? I still use Pine to read and send my mail, and only resort to
PC-based email clients when some clown sends me HTML-only mail.

So what are your views on HTML postings in NetNews?

*Forcing* people to upgrade to the latest technology will not work,
encouraging them will. The internet connects together many, many different
people using many, many different levels of technology. Whats the point of
having an Internet if they can't talk to each other?

Scotty
--
Steve Howie                                     [log in to unmask]
Netnews and Listserv Admin                      519 824-4120 x2556
University of Guelph
"If it's not Scottish it's CRRRRAAAAAAAPPPPPP!"