Re: ASCII convention

In message <434E94F3.554A@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Peter T. Daniels <grammatim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes
Richard Herring wrote:

In message <434E6FF4.4A00@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Peter T. Daniels 

>(a) html is bad because (i) it bloats the size of a message and (ii)
>most people clearly don't know how to use it and end up sending messages
>that are unreadable because of size, font, and/or color of type.
>
True but irrelevant, since he's not talking about using HTML in email or
news postings, but where it belongs, in web pages. Moreover, the use of
HTML plus CSS, because it separates form from content, is the exact
antithesis of the kind of badly-structured document you are describing.

I am not, nor have I ever been, talking about webpages. 

But, but, ... *you* were the one who introduced the topic of HTML.

<thinks> Ah, that's right. You had a bizarre misconception about HTML being necessary to make text appear as italic or bold or whatever.

So what _are_ those things you don't read because they are too slow and make your computer freeze up? ;-) 

>(b) Why should I have to bother with all that "defining," html or no?

Come on, surely you know that "you" doesn't always mean you? You
*_/personally/_* don't have to. The author of the style *** does the
defining; you, the reader, simply choose a style that you like.


Since it has nothing to do with email, it has nothing to do with this
subthread.

If you're allowed to digress into the behaviour of Word, which equally has nothing to do with email, I don't see why others shouldn't be allowed to digress into HTML and style sheets.

--
Richard Herring
.

Quantcast