Searching \ for 'Please add http:// [OT]' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=OT%5D
Search entire site for: 'Please add http:// [OT]'.

Truncated match.
PICList Thread
'Please add http:// [OT]'
1999\10\21@035255 by Don McKenzie

flavicon
face
Jim Robertson wrote:
> Example before:
> There's a surplus place in Australia http://www.rockby.com.au selling 3.5ish Mhz
> Example After:
> There's a surplus place in Australia http://rockby.com.au selling 3.5ish Mhz
> So without any further fuss, how about it making it a point of netiquette.
> A little effort by one to aid many.

I agree 300% Jim, and when I have attempted to get others to change, I
get answers like:
Get yourself a decent mailer program that handles it!

Which reminds me of another "pet hate" of mine. 'Date' formats on the
web.
Today 21/10/99, 10/21/99, why not 21-Oct-99?

I love the US format, as I use it to name and sort files in date order,
example: Robertson1021.txt

If today was the 09/10/99, then it could be 10/09/99 easily. Depends on
which part of the world you come from, so how can you be sure which date
a person is really talking about when it comes to our global village?

Don McKenzie  spam_OUTdonTakeThisOuTspamdontronics.com http://www.dontronics.com

Don's Download Dungeon:   http://www.dontronics.com/download.html
Australian Electronics Ring http://www.dontronics.com/aering.html
Win $500USD Cash. Micro design contest:  http://www.simmstick.com

1999\10\21@042033 by Mark Willis

flavicon
face
Don McKenzie wrote:
{Quote hidden}

I use 19991021 as a date format, myself [CCYYMMDD];  It's quite Y2k safe
(though it WILL fail at Y10k, sadly!)  It sorts nicely with any sort
program, into date sequential order.  And it's fast to learn, and uses
less file space than dd-MMM-yy does.

Part of this is, I've coded & re-coded the "how to sort 02-Jun-99 before
01-Oct-00" thing umpteen (TOO Many!) times, in too many Assembler and
higher level languages (Cobol, Jovial, Pascal, C, C++, etc. ick),
provisions for Y2k coding included, so I no longer like that format much
(When do you cut off? 00..50, figuring it's 2000..2050?, and start the
1900 dates with 1951?  What about birthdays, then?  And what about
future holidays, etc?  Ack!  It's maddening <G>)  I'd suggest we at
least use a 4-digit number for years, for clarity, if we use 21-Oct-1999
it's up to Y9k safe;  Lest we all go nuts <G>

 Mark

1999\10\21@064751 by Keith Causey

picon face
And add to that the posts with the response at the bottom.

1999\10\21@082054 by paulb

flavicon
face
Morgan Olsson wrote:

>> Get yourself a decent mailer program that handles it!
> I believe that will be standard in all mail readers soon.
> Ought to be anyway...

 Hang on, just *what* ought to be be a standard?  How do you recognise
a URL without a protocol designator?  By the "www" at the front?  Is
that a kludge built into Exploder?

 Not so, *not all* Web addresses start with "www".  What else then?
Anything with.dots.in.it?  Anything with "@" in it?  Ple@se explain?
--
 Cheers,
       Paul B.

1999\10\21@094359 by Andy Kunz

flavicon
face
>I use 19991021 as a date format, myself [CCYYMMDD];  It's quite Y2k safe
>(though it WILL fail at Y10k, sadly!)  It sorts nicely with any sort

Hopefully we won't be running M$ products then.

Or COBOL.  Which reminds me of a joke I have.  To save bandwidth, I won't
post it, but if you want it PRIVATE andyspamKILLspamrc-hydros.com

Andy

==================================================================
Eternity is only a heartbeat away - are you ready?  Ask me how!
------------------------------------------------------------------
.....andyKILLspamspam.....rc-hydros.com      http://www.rc-hydros.com     - Race Boats
EraseMEandyspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTmontanadesign.com  http://www.montanadesign.com - Electronics
==================================================================

1999\10\21@102625 by Wagner Lipnharski

picon face
Paul, you are so naive... :)
You don't understand what is "an inteligent browser". It means that it
will understand the url in any way it is written, even typing only  >>
"that company that sells cell phone" << the inteligent browser will
build an automatic link to "http://www.motorola.com", or typing "fruit"
it will translate (according to the rest of the context) to
"http://www.apple.com".
The problem with those inteligent browsers, is that for a while they are
doing a lot of mess, for example if you type:
"Dear Paul, our business meeting was changed to next Friday 2pm sharp",
it will translate to:
http://www.LoveLife.com http://www.SaintPaulHospital.com
http://www.Belong2Us.com http://www.WallStreetJournal.com
http://www.ShaftCouplings.com http://www.HeavensMortuary.com
http://www.UHaul.com http://www.NextComputers.com
http://www.Budweiser.com http://www.AfterLunch.com
http://www.Gillette.com
so as you can see, they have few problems yet, but Paul, you need to
learn more, just read more those UFO's magazines and watch more
MTV....so you will understand what means "decent mailer" ;)

Wagner

"Paul B. Webster VK2BZC" wrote:
{Quote hidden}

1999\10\21@113048 by Morgan Olsson

picon face
Hej Paul B. Webster VK2BZC. Tack fšr ditt meddelande 22:19 1999-10-21 +1000 enligt nedan:
>Morgan Olsson wrote:
>
> >> Get yourself a decent mailer program that handles it!
> > I believe that will be standard in all mail readers soon.
> > Ought to be anyway...
>
>   Hang on, just *what* ought to be be a standard?  How do you recognise
>a URL without a protocol designator?  By the "www" at the front?  Is
>that a kludge built into Exploder?

No idea, abandoned it the hundredth time it crashed my system some years ago...

We humans easily can tell what is an adress by looking at the whole "word";
very few words start (or sentences end) with "http://www."
In any language??

But now as we have it and it have sort of become standard for humans not to say "" (because it is unspeakable), the programs shuld of course adapt to the users, not the other way around.

Programs shall help the user, not demand extras...

>   Not so, *not all* Web addresses start with "www".  What else then?

That is rght, the programs should look for all possibilities: , ftp:// , , etc so why do not all programs also look for www. ?

Eudora which I use seem to get find all right.
To make it nicer the programs ought to have a little more logic, though, as a lot of programs triggers on only partial adresses, like just


BTW, on a similar topic, what sometimes annoys me are the programs that think that anything with a 2 is an e-mail adress, such as "@5V" is an URL...

The "@" is an old typographic character just meaning in english the word "at"



My personal opinion is that "http://www." should never been used ever in the first place, it is like having a pre-dial number for earth in the phone system... !


Well... was it me who complained about the high nonPIC traffic...?  ;)
But we do use [OT]...

Regards

/Morgan

Morgans Reglerteknik, HŠllekŒs, 277 35 KIVIK, SWEDEN
  tel +46(0)414-446620, fax -70331,   mrtspamspam_OUTiname.com

1999\10\21@114306 by Nick Taylor

picon face
Along with wanting the prefix and understandable date, I'd
really like to see people limit their line length to 72 characters!
Text lines that go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on
and on and on and on and on and on and on really bug me!

Side note to Andy:  if you don't change your dates to CCCYYMMDD you're
gonna have a lot of code repair to do to fix your Y10K problems!

- Nick -

1999\10\21@125927 by Wagner Lipnharski

picon face
... and WWW. turns to be the bigger joker of all times, after all,
several sites doesn't use it anyway (http://home.xxx.xxx, or
http://anything.xxx), the funny thing here is that some phone or radio
announcing a web site turns to be terrible, because the announcer (often
not a web sailor) worries so much to say perfectly the three "W" spaced
and perfectly pronounced followed by the "dot", (they take 5 whole
seconds to say that) but them in less than half second they say the real
thing, the one that they really should say slowly, and again, the "DOT
COM" comes in another 3 seconds...   Sounds like this:
DoubleU DoubleU DoubleU Dot    #@$&%    Dot COM
We often need to replay the message 3 times to understand it.
What is the matter with that people?

Recently calling BellSouth ISDN repair, it was delaying very much, so
came a message telling me that I had the option to send an email about
the problem, so I heard to go to  DoubleU, DoubleU, DoubleU, Dot, then
fast something that sounded as F or S, then N or M, then L (this one was
easy), then B or D or it was T?, then V or it was Z?, and then finally
the DOT COM was ok.  It took me 18 attempts of all possible combinations
of FMLTV, SNLDZ and others until I got it, SMLBZ, of course if the
announcer would say "abbreviation for Small Business, SMLBZ" it would be
a lot more easy, but I think they still watching too much MTV, fast
brain damage ;)

Morgan Olsson wrote:
> My personal opinion is that "http://www." should never been used ever in the first pl
ace, it is like having a pre-dial number for earth in the phone system... !

1999\10\21@132032 by Sean Breheny

face picon face
Wagner and Paul,

I am ROTFL! I have learned two very good new computer terms today:

Microsoft Internet Exploder

AND

Web Salior

I think these should be in wider use ;-)

BTW, as for recognizing URLs, I don't think it is based on the WWW
portion, I think that most programs just look for OR if they are
more sophistocated, they look for followed by a "." before any
spaces. It would be a truly rare situation in any language to have
something which had no spaces, began with and contained at least
one "."

Sean


On Thu, 21 Oct 1999, Wagner Lipnharski wrote:

{Quote hidden}

place, it is like having a pre-dial number for earth in the phone system... !
>

1999\10\21@145647 by Matt Bonner

flavicon
face
Sean Breheny wrote:

> BTW, as for recognizing URLs, I don't think it is based on the WWW
> portion, I think that most programs just look for OR if they are
> more sophistocated, they look for followed by a "." before any
> spaces. It would be a truly rare situation in any language to have
> something which had no spaces, began with and contained at least
> one "."

My newsreader (Xnews) takes a simpler and (I think) more elegant
approach.  You can double-click anywhere in a message and Xnews will
attempt to execute the word that you clicked on.  Click on
http://www.microchip.com (trying to keep this PIC related), it calls up the
default browser (in my case Netscape) and takes you to the site.  Click
on the "more" and it brings up the DOS command "more" (OK, not too
useful in that case).  Click on the word "fdisk".....

--Matt

1999\10\21@175152 by Mitchell D. Miller

picon face
> Along with wanting the prefix and understandable date, I'd
> really like to see people limit their line length to 72 characters!

Why should line length be limited at all?  Your reader should automatically
split the lines at the right hand margin of your screen, and automatically
format each paragraph for you.  This allows those of us with 80 char tubes
to be able to see the information formatted correctly along with those that
have 132+ column displays.

Mitch Miller, Omaha, NE
@spam@mdmiller2KILLspamspamhome.com

1999\10\21@180441 by Mitchell D. Miller

picon face
> ... and WWW. turns to be the bigger joker of all times, after all,
> several sites doesn't use it anyway (http://home.xxx.xxx, or
> http://anything.xxx)

Consider that the portion of the URL following and up to the first /
following, is the name of a computer.  In a large computing environment,
consistently naming http servers with a www prefix appropriately identifies
these devices and the service(s) they provide.  It's unfortunate that web
publishers have deviated from this standard now creating confusion since you
no longer know whether "xyz.com" means http://www.xyz.com or _just_ xyz.com.
Although these two URLs can dereference into the same IP address, that now
effectively doubles the size of the DNS server's tables (if everyone
registered both forms of the URL).

Since the Internet is used for much more than just http traffic, it _is_
reasonable to uniquely identify those services with a standard prefix.

Mitch Miller, Omaha, NE
KILLspammdmiller2KILLspamspamhome.com

1999\10\21@182347 by paulb

flavicon
face
Andy Kunz wrote:

> Or COBOL.  Which reminds me of a joke I have.  To save bandwidth, I
> won't post it, but if you want it PRIVATE RemoveMEandyTakeThisOuTspamrc-hydros.com

 It involves cryo-suspension, doesn't it?

Wagner Lipnharski wrote:

> Paul, you are so naive... :)

 Well, *that*'s a turn-around!

> so as you can see, they have few problems yet, but Paul, you need to
> learn more, just read more those UFO's magazines and watch more
> MTV....so you will understand what means "decent mailer" ;)

 Well put.

> the funny thing here is that some phone or radio announcing a web site
> turns to be terrible, because the announcer (often not a web sailor)
> worries so much to say perfectly the three "W" spaced and perfectly
> pronounced followed by the "dot",
...
> DoubleU DoubleU DoubleU Dot    #@$&%    Dot COM
> We often need to replay the message 3 times to understand it.
> What is the matter with that people?

 When *I* was small, TV announcers on the National TV (and radio)
Network (i.e., government-sponsored; the ABC) were the bastions of the
English language.  Sadly, nowadays they seem to be lucky to be able to
read fast enough.

Sean Breheny wrote:

> Microsoft Internet Exploder
...
> I think these should be in wider use ;-)

 "Exploder" *is*, I am surprised you hadn't noticed.  The other is a
Wagner original. :)

> BTW, as for recognizing URLs, I don't think it is based on the WWW
> portion, I think that most programs just look for

 Which is not surprising, since the DEFINITION of a URL (Uniform - note
that - Resource Locator) is something which starts with a protocol
identifier.  That's why it is a URL and why I refer to "not URLs".  In
short, a URL is a URL is a URL, and if it's not, it's not.

 WWW means something different.  As Mitch Miller (message just in)
points out.
--
 Cheers,
       Paul B.

1999\10\21@190720 by bill

flavicon
face
> Since the Internet is used for much more than just http traffic, it _is_
> reasonable to uniquely identify those services with a standard prefix.
>
> Mitch Miller, Omaha, NE

I think I understand your reasoning, but I have to side with Wagner on this
one.  "" already serves as a standard prefix, and being a genuine
standard rather than just an unofficial convention, it by necessity always
refers to a web url and never anything else.  There's nothing to prevent a
machine with a host name of www from providing ftp, gopher, mail, or any
other services not related to the www.  The protocol prefix makes a positive
identifier that will not create confusion when other services are provided by
the same host.

It would be interesting to tell a room full of users "Browse to aim.aol.com"
and see how many go to http://www.aim.aol.com instead (these are actually two
different web sites).  This is a "standard" the world would be better off
without.  It does nothing that isn't already done better by existing standards,
and creates additional complexity and limitations without providing any real
benefit in exchange.  It would like adding "555" after the "800" (or now 888
and 877 also) in US toll free phone numbers so people will know that they're
toll free.  An ineficient way of doing something that doesn't need to be done
at all.

But it has so much momentum behind it now, I guess we're stuck with it.


---
                                       Peace,
                                       William Kitchen
                                       spamBeGonebillspamBeGonespamiglobal.net

The future is ours to create.

1999\10\21@202841 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face
   Why should line length be limited at all?  Your reader should
   automatically split the lines at the right hand margin of your screen,
   and automatically format each paragraph for you.  This allows those of
   us with 80 char tubes to be able to see the information formatted
   correctly along with those that have 132+ column displays.

Gee, my reader assumes that the AUTHOR of a message might have had
some opinions on how it should have been formatting.  The whole idea
that the reader should control formatting was/is a very HTML-ish thing
(and one that seems to have been quite a failure, in general), but
whoever carried that over to (non-HTML) EMAIL was out of their mind.

BillW

1999\10\21@203259 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face
   Since the Internet is used for much more than just http traffic, it _is_
   reasonable to uniquely identify those services with a standard prefix.

Sure.  Just like all those 'telnet.cisco.com' and 'discard.cisco.com'
and 'chargen.cisco.com' and 'nfs.home.com' and so on :-)

I guess we have differing opinions on some network matters...

Do you work for @home or are they just your ISP?

BillW

1999\10\21@205205 by Mike Werner

picon face
Mitchell D. Miller wrote:
> Why should line length be limited at all?  Your reader should automatically
> split the lines at the right hand margin of your screen, and automatically
> format each paragraph for you.  This allows those of us with 80 char tubes
> to be able to see the information formatted correctly along with those that
> have 132+ column displays.

No, it should certainly *not* do that.  Formatting is done by the
*sending* programming.  If the receiving were to reformat the message,
it is very possible that data loss could occur.  A primary example
would be the diagrams often done in ASCII art.  If the receiving
program were to reformat the message as you suggest the diagram would
be rendered completely useless.  Another example would be any sort of
table where data was sorted into columns.

Whle on the subject of despised things - my pet peeve are email
programs that send the message as an attachment.  Even worse are the
ones sending HTML.  Remarkably obnoxious.
--
Mike Werner  KA8YSD           |  "Where do you want to go today?"
ICQ# 12934898                 |  "As far from Redmond as possible!"
'91 GS500E                    |
Morgantown WV                 |  Only dead fish go with the flow.

1999\10\22@055423 by Morgan Olsson

picon face
Hej Nick Taylor. Tack fšr ditt meddelande 08:41 1999-10-21 -0700 enligt nedan:
>Along with wanting the prefix and understandable date, I'd
>really like to see people limit their line length to 72 characters!

Problems either way.
Having 72char linelengths (other numbers than 72 are also used...) will soon be extended anyway since replies add characters in front of each paragraph, some programs more than one char.
When the next repliers program cut the lines again it get messy in the end.
And line-broke ASCII-art...
Also, on handheld systems etc 72+ chars per line is impossible.

No, I like my mail program to wrap according to *my* window size when wiewing, not to anybodys elses window size.

Then the reader is free to watch it his way.

(And personally I think reply markers per paragraph is nicer, too)

Regards
/Morgan
Morgans Reglerteknik, HŠllekŒs, 277 35 KIVIK, SWEDEN
  tel +46(0)414-446620, fax -70331,   TakeThisOuTmrtEraseMEspamspam_OUTiname.com

1999\10\22@125627 by bill

flavicon
face
> Why should line length be limited at all?  Your reader should automatically
> split the lines at the right hand margin of your screen, and automatically
> format each paragraph for you.  This allows those of us with 80 char tubes
> to be able to see the information formatted correctly along with those that
> have 132+ column displays.

I partially agree.  Aside from specially formatted text (columns of data,
ASCII drawings, etc.) and paragraph breaks, there is a reasonable
argument that can be made for avoiding explicit line breaks and letting the
viewer handle it.  This allows the receiving program to adjust for whatever its
capabilities are, allowing for reasonable looking text regardless of the width
of the display (or window), proportional fonts, etc.  But when formatted text
is included, better to limit it to something less than 80 characters whenever
practical so that the readers word wrap won't produce the ugly long-short-
long-short effect.  Of course, agreeing on the "correct" line length is another
issue.  Some say 72, some say 75, some say 78.  The shorter the length,
the lower the likelyhood of weird formatting on the receiving end.  But still,
have to be reasonable about it.  I mean, we could all limit our line length to
38 characters so it will format properly on the 40 column display of a
Commodore 64, but trying to be that compatible would be rather annoying.

My own opinion is that anything under 79 characters is good enough to be
considered well mannered. Anyone who's reader is so limited as to have a
problem with 78 char's should consider this their own problem and resolve it
themselves (or just live with it) rather than blaming the sender.  Needs of the
many vs. needs of the few kind of thing.


---
                                       Peace,
                                       William Kitchen
                                       RemoveMEbillspamTakeThisOuTiglobal.net

The future is ours to create.

1999\10\22@131915 by bill

flavicon
face
> (And personally I think reply markers per paragraph is nicer, too)

I rather like the lin-by-line reply markers myself.  Some programs are smart
enough to reformat quoted text without screwing up the markers.  A nice
feature.  Unfortunately, this isn't common enough to reasonably assume that
the recipient's mailer will do this.

Unfortunately, the lack of standards reduces email etiquette to maintaining a
"least-common-denominator" style.  If HTML were universally (or at least,
almost universally) supported in mail readers, I think that using it would be
more considerate than not using it.  HTML allows for variation in viewers
while still giving the sender some formatting control when needed (using
PRE tags, ordered and unordered lists, tables, etc.).  And a nice GIF of a
schematic is much more readable than crude ASCII drawings (especially
when proportional fonts are involved).  But, since it is so annoying in non-
html capable readers, and since there are so many of these readers in use,
it is still best to refrain from using HTML in email.  Especially on mailing lis
ts.


---
                                       Peace,
                                       William Kitchen
                                       billEraseMEspam.....iglobal.net

The future is ours to create.

1999\10\22@151845 by Erik Reikes

flavicon
face
At 01:18 PM 10/21/99 -0400, you wrote:
>> Morgan Olsson wrote:
>> > My personal opinion is that "http://www." should never been used ever in the
>first place, it is like having a pre-dial number for earth in the phone
>system... !

I think its legacy stuff to differentiate the servers during DNS lookup or
during the routing phase.  Some of the other options are ftp.blabla.com,
mail.blabla.com, news.blabla.com, maybe even pic.blabla.com?

I keep having this dream where there are hundreds of battery powered PIC's
all over my house wirelessly comunicating with TCP/IP.  They have to be
about the size of your thumb or less and able to be thrown around like
popcorn...  It seems like its just the wireless that is difficult...

Hmm...

-Erik Reikes

1999\10\22@155412 by Martin McCormick

flavicon
face
Erik Reikes and a cast of others write:
>At 01:18 PM 10/21/99 -0400, you wrote:
>>> Morgan Olsson wrote:
>>> > My personal opinion is that "http://www." should never been used ever in the
>>first place, it is like having a pre-dial number for earth in the phone
>>system... !
>
>I think its legacy stuff to differentiate the servers during DNS lookup or
>during the routing phase.

       Certainly.  Any name does that although the initial dns lookup
is the only time that the  name is used in establishing a network
session.  The dns for the particular domain you are trying to reach is
supposed to know what Internet number a given name belongs to and it
answers with that number.  All routing and Internet communications
after that are via that number.   just tells your browser what
protocol to use.  Web servers don't behave any differently on the
INternet than do telnet clients or ftp servers.

Martin

1999\10\22@170803 by Mark Willis

flavicon
face
William J. Kitchen wrote:
>
> > (And personally I think reply markers per paragraph is nicer, too)
>
> I rather like the lin-by-line reply markers myself.  Some programs are smart
> enough to reformat quoted text without screwing up the markers.  A nice
> feature.  Unfortunately, this isn't common enough to reasonably assume that
> the recipient's mailer will do this.
>
> Unfortunately, the lack of standards reduces email etiquette to maintaining a
> "least-common-denominator" style.  If HTML were universally (or at least,
> almost universally) supported in mail readers, I think that using it would be
> more considerate than not using it.  HTML allows for variation in viewers
> while still giving the sender some formatting control when needed (using
> PRE tags, ordered and unordered lists, tables, etc.).  And a nice GIF of a
> schematic is much more readable than crude ASCII drawings (especially
> when proportional fonts are involved).  But, since it is so annoying in non-
> html capable readers, and since there are so many of these readers in use,
> it is still best to refrain from using HTML in email.  Especially on mailing l
ists.
>
> ---
>                                         Peace,
>                                         William Kitchen
>                                         EraseMEbillspamiglobal.net
>
> The future is ours to create.

For those worried about Internet bandwidth, including Mailing List
Admins, and those who have to pay by the second for their 'Net connect
time, like the gent somewhere in Africa I semi-know, who I'm told pays
radio phone charges plus per-minute ISP time for a bad 14.4k connection,
HTML-ized mail is considered an unnecessary EVIL.  It's a matter of
choice - I don't have any choice but to receive your message, before I
can read it, in most mail packages.  (TelNet isn't much of an option for
the guy in Africa, and many cannot figure out Yet Another Tool.)

HTML is IMO for web pages, text is for e-mail messages <G>

It's also a matter of usability for those with physical handicaps of
various kinds - The blind person using an old DOS screen reader program
to read their mail, just wants the MEANING you're trying to get to them,
not your fancy formatting, special fonts, etc., as all that just gets in
their way!  So I attach files, or more often put things up on my web
page & drop a link to that data, the blind viewer will have to ask
someone to explain the visual stuff on a GIF or JPG file, but if they
don't care (and often they don't!), they aren't stuck with 120k more
e-mail in their inbox that they cannot use, don't want, and that just
gets in their road.

Netscape has View\Wrap Long Lines turned on here, so I don't (now) find
long text lines annoying, they sure are otherwise.  (Replying to a
message often re-wraps the text lines to screen width, something for
some people to try - Slow & bothersome, but easier than the
alternative!)

(I'm currently downloading about 4-6Mb a Day here, of just e-mail, from
a wide variety of mail lists I'm lurking on;  If they all went to HTML
mail, me with a 31.2k connect until my 56k modems get back from being
upgraded, it wouldn't be pretty!  I need the IPRoute machine up, and
then a mail server rigged, with large HDD's <G>)

 Mark

1999\10\22@182506 by bill

flavicon
face
I guess it all just depends on how it's used.  I certainly don't advocate fillin
g
every email with graphical buttons, background images, or cutesy animated
gifs.  But a P tag (angle brackets ommitted to keep from confusing html
capable readers) uses less bandwidth than two CR-LF's to create a blank
line the normal way, and quite a bit less than having a CR-LF (or even just a
CR) at the end of every line as opposed to just letting the reader format
paragraphs.

Occasional bolds and underlines add a little, but it's pretty small.  A
BLOCKQUOTE tag pair would in most cases be no worse, and sometimes
better than several lines of quoted text beginning with "> " and ending with
CR-LF.

Ordered and unordered lists are also reasonably efficient compared to
typical manually formatted equivalents.

As for the content vs. mere aesthetics, some HTML tags do in fact convey
some meaning.  EM and H1, for example.  However, I will readily concede
that HTML documents are rarely created with this in mind.

On average, it would increase bandwidth usage, but I think that as long as it
isn't excessive (like the bloated junk html that is generated by most MS
products), the difference would be small and you would get something back
for it.

Bear in mind that I'm not meaning to argue the case for using HTML on
mailing lists in the here and now.  In fact, I agree that this would be uncouth
behaviour.  I'm only arguing that it's not an inherently bad idea if it were
more universally supported.  And in the present can be useful for
exchanging info with select individuals who are known to have the necessary
software and are not opposed to receiving html email.  I seem to recall
seeing something in Netscape mail that let you identify which recipients in
your address book can handle html, so that the mailer could automatically
enable/disable its use of html appropriately.  That seems very sensible.


---
                                       Peace,
                                       William Kitchen
                                       RemoveMEbillEraseMEspamEraseMEiglobal.net

The future is ours to create.

1999\10\22@183143 by Andy Kunz

flavicon
face
>Side note to Andy:  if you don't change your dates to CCCYYMMDD you're
>gonna have a lot of code repair to do to fix your Y10K problems!

Only 2 people asked me for a copy of the joke I offered.  Good thing I
didn't post it - that would have been 1800 unhappy people.

And we sure don't want NON-PIC traffic, do we :-(

Andy

==================================================================
Eternity is only a heartbeat away - are you ready?  Ask me how!
------------------------------------------------------------------
RemoveMEandyspam_OUTspamKILLspamrc-hydros.com      http://www.rc-hydros.com     - Race Boats
RemoveMEandyTakeThisOuTspamspammontanadesign.com  http://www.montanadesign.com - Electronics
==================================================================

1999\10\22@190927 by Mark Willis

flavicon
face
Martin McCormick wrote:
{Quote hidden}

Myself, I wish someone had used "web.blabla.com", that's a LOT easier to
pronounce.  Some do, nowadays, too.

Remember, too, folks, we're going to be hitting that new IPv6 (RFC1883,
RFC1884, RFC1885 etc.) standard, going from 32 bits to 128 bits in all
IP addresses, some day - so instead of the current http://209.61.29.7/
that a standard IPv4 DNS server resolves http://www.iversoft.com/ into,
we'll see it resolve into something more like
http://1080:93:3:4:8:800:200C:417A/, this will make DNS servers much
more loved, methinks <VBG>  (The purpose for doing this is to make more
room for future expansion, the 'Net's IP address space is getting sort
of full now!)

 Mark

1999\10\22@201944 by Mitchell D. Miller

picon face
> Do you work for @home or are they just your ISP?

Just my ISP.

Mitch Miller
Omaha, NE
EraseMEmdmiller2spamspamspamBeGonehome.com

1999\10\22@201954 by Mitchell D. Miller

picon face
> Whle on the subject of despised things - my pet peeve are email
> programs that send the message as an attachment.  Even worse are the
> ones sending HTML.  Remarkably obnoxious.

Mine's not doing this, is it?  I share that peeve.

Mitch Miller
Omaha, NE
RemoveMEmdmiller2KILLspamspamhome.com

1999\10\22@220437 by Mark Willis

flavicon
face
William J. Kitchen wrote:
>
> I guess it all just depends on how it's used.  I certainly don't advocate fill
ing
{Quote hidden}

Agree on the P tag, "for some strange reason" some people think
Bloatware's the problem.  I'll settle for education (Not everyone CAN
read HTML mail, and not everyone likes it!), truth (Some people are
blind, and some readers don't know what HTML is), and so on <G>)  Also,
some ISP's use just a simple Character interface for all e-mail (scn.org
locally, for example);  also, with some devices for e-mail being small
memory model & palm-sized, there's not always room for anything but text
on there, and hard to upgrade them! <G>

Definitely CAN do that setting in NetScrape, I haven't enabled anyone
for that though, I'm a "stealth" member of the campaign FOR Ascii e-mail
<G>  You go to Address Book, select their line, and hit Properties, then
there's a check box you can check.  I'd assume it works <G>

 Mark

1999\10\23@100130 by Tom Handley

picon face
At 05:25 PM 10/21/99 +0200, Morgan Olsson wrote:
>But now as we have it and it have sort of become standard for humans
>not to say "" (because it is unspeakable)

  Hey, Victor Borge could say it:

  /ach, t/e, t/e, p/e, <fssst, whoosh, whoosh>

and if you add the quotes:

  <urch, eech>, and of course, <eech, urch> for left-handed people.

Excuse me,<eech> I seem to have my hand stuck in my piano!<svwhissh, pbhoot>

  - Tom  ;-) <pbhoot, eech, svhissh, qkrqkrqkrqkr>


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Handley
New Age Communications
Since '75 before "New Age" and no one around here is waiting for UFOs ;-)

1999\10\23@235751 by Mitchell D. Miller

picon face
>    /ach, t/e, t/e, p/e, <fssst, whoosh, whoosh>

I think it's actually <whack, whack>  <G>  I recently heard some of our Unix
programmers refer to ! as a bang, and * as a splat.

Mitch Miller, Omaha, NE
spamBeGonemdmiller2STOPspamspamEraseMEhome.com

1999\10\25@053159 by Dr. Imre Bartfai

flavicon
face
Hi,

I must plead for COBOL: it is not inherently Y2K-sick, only those programs
where century was omitted. However, it is not COBOL-specific. IMHO one can
program bullshit in all programming languages... even if in C (maybe
Intercal is an exception <G> )

Regards,
Imre


On Thu, 21 Oct 1999, Andy Kunz wrote:

{Quote hidden}

1999\10\25@141959 by Andy Kunz

flavicon
face
>I think it's actually <whack, whack>  <G>  I recently heard some of our Unix
>programmers refer to ! as a bang, and * as a splat.

Goes way back before Unix, that's for sure.

I think we had this discussion on this list already.  Perhaps you all can
refer to the archives for it.

Andy

==================================================================
Eternity is only a heartbeat away - are you ready?  Ask me how!
------------------------------------------------------------------
spamBeGoneandyspamKILLspamrc-hydros.com      http://www.rc-hydros.com     - Race Boats
.....andyspam_OUTspammontanadesign.com  http://www.montanadesign.com - Electronics
==================================================================

1999\10\25@142004 by Andres Tarzia

flavicon
face
Erik,

I would *NOT* use TCP/IP for communication between PICs. Now, if you have
some additional devices to connect...

I cannot help you with the thumb-size problem...

But there are several perfectly good wireless transmitters/receivers out
there. They are just *perfect* for in-house communication, with a range from
40m to over 200m (from 133ft to over 666ft). Fully digital I/O with simple
uC interface. If you are interested, I can point you in the right (I hope)
direction.

NOTE: No affiliation, just love these products.

Regards,
Andres Tarzia
Technology Consultant, SMART S.A.
e-mail: TakeThisOuTatarzia.....spamTakeThisOuTsmart.com.ar

{Original Message removed}

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 1999 , 2000 only
- Today
- New search...