Html/text etiquette

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
72 messages Options
1234
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Html/text etiquette

Mike Easter-2
My opinion (where 'should' and such below mean in my opinion):

Considering etiquette/netiquette in html vs plain text (hereafter in
this message: 'text')  'correspondence' such as email and newsgroups

The two 'formats' or rather the formatted vs the unformatted in terms of
markup should not be considered 'equal' in terms of what is polite and
what is not polite, instead, the html should be considered a 'higher'
level which higher level requires /consideration/ of the 'lowest common
denominator'.

Maybe the world consists of those who 'prefer' to correspond in html
(html/ers) and those who 'prefer' to (or in some circumstances *must*)
correspond in plain text (texters); the html/ers should not email html
to the texters, but instead should email them in plain text. Tbird
permits configuration to email in html or text and further its
addressbook permits configuration to email particular addresses in text
instead of html.

So, as regards email as opposed to newsgroups, one might consider that
some correspondents will/should be emailing some people in html while
emailing other people in text; while there will be other correspondents
who are emailing everyone in text, since text is the 'lowest
denominator'.  That is, I believe that it is rude for an html/er to html
to someone who they 'know' (or should know) is text. -- whereas I don't
believe that it is rude for a texter to email text to someone who they
know or should/could know is html.

Newsgroups are another matter because newsgroups are not email and one
is messaging many instead of (usually emailing) one, but some of the
same principles which apply to email should apply to newsgroups. In
usenet (but this here is moz), very few newsgroups are for html, but are
considered text only.  Some usenet groups consider html to be acceptable
there, and the texters should understand and accept that - the nature of
that group.  If they can't 'handle' the html, they shouldn't be there or
whining about it.  A group should not be 'ambiguously' html vs text.  It
should be html allowed or not.

The mozilla news server is an unusual news server in that it 'allows'
html while back-handedly discouraging it. This is quite unfortunate,
because it gives rise to a lot of arguments from people who consider
that the moz groups should be like usenet in general where html is
limited to certain groups and not allowed in most others.

Many news servers try to 'prevent' html posting, but some newsgroups are
not 'intended' to be allowing html but the news server by which the
message is posted is not configured to prevent all html.

At this time the moz groups are 'run' ie server admin/ed by giganews.
Giganews does not have a 'no html' posting guideline for its own servers
and depends on the netiquette concepts to keep html out of the usenet
groups where it isn't wanted and limited to those usenet groups where it
is acceptable.  That is, giganews does not 'announce' an html filter
like some news servers do.

Since the moz server has some amount of 'retro-moderation' I believe
that the moz retromoderators should develop a more 'comprehensive'
(better?) policy than the one they have which is ambiguous and gives
rise to friction within the groups.

I also think that html/ers might not agree with my opinions that -1-
html/ers should not email texters html or that -2- usenet groups should
be considered text unless specifically designated as an html-accepted
group or that -3- html 'rights' should not be considered to be the same
as text 'rights' in terms of what is and is not proper etiquette.


--
Mike Easter
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Html/text etiquette

David E. Ross-3
On 9/8/10 10:47 AM, Mike Easter wrote:

> My opinion (where 'should' and such below mean in my opinion):
>
> Considering etiquette/netiquette in html vs plain text (hereafter in
> this message: 'text')  'correspondence' such as email and newsgroups
>
> The two 'formats' or rather the formatted vs the unformatted in terms of
> markup should not be considered 'equal' in terms of what is polite and
> what is not polite, instead, the html should be considered a 'higher'
> level which higher level requires /consideration/ of the 'lowest common
> denominator'.
>
> Maybe the world consists of those who 'prefer' to correspond in html
> (html/ers) and those who 'prefer' to (or in some circumstances *must*)
> correspond in plain text (texters); the html/ers should not email html
> to the texters, but instead should email them in plain text. Tbird
> permits configuration to email in html or text and further its
> addressbook permits configuration to email particular addresses in text
> instead of html.
>
> So, as regards email as opposed to newsgroups, one might consider that
> some correspondents will/should be emailing some people in html while
> emailing other people in text; while there will be other correspondents
> who are emailing everyone in text, since text is the 'lowest
> denominator'.  That is, I believe that it is rude for an html/er to html
> to someone who they 'know' (or should know) is text. -- whereas I don't
> believe that it is rude for a texter to email text to someone who they
> know or should/could know is html.
>
> Newsgroups are another matter because newsgroups are not email and one
> is messaging many instead of (usually emailing) one, but some of the
> same principles which apply to email should apply to newsgroups. In
> usenet (but this here is moz), very few newsgroups are for html, but are
> considered text only.  Some usenet groups consider html to be acceptable
> there, and the texters should understand and accept that - the nature of
> that group.  If they can't 'handle' the html, they shouldn't be there or
> whining about it.  A group should not be 'ambiguously' html vs text.  It
> should be html allowed or not.
>
> The mozilla news server is an unusual news server in that it 'allows'
> html while back-handedly discouraging it. This is quite unfortunate,
> because it gives rise to a lot of arguments from people who consider
> that the moz groups should be like usenet in general where html is
> limited to certain groups and not allowed in most others.
>
> Many news servers try to 'prevent' html posting, but some newsgroups are
> not 'intended' to be allowing html but the news server by which the
> message is posted is not configured to prevent all html.
>
> At this time the moz groups are 'run' ie server admin/ed by giganews.
> Giganews does not have a 'no html' posting guideline for its own servers
> and depends on the netiquette concepts to keep html out of the usenet
> groups where it isn't wanted and limited to those usenet groups where it
> is acceptable.  That is, giganews does not 'announce' an html filter
> like some news servers do.
>
> Since the moz server has some amount of 'retro-moderation' I believe
> that the moz retromoderators should develop a more 'comprehensive'
> (better?) policy than the one they have which is ambiguous and gives
> rise to friction within the groups.
>
> I also think that html/ers might not agree with my opinions that -1-
> html/ers should not email texters html or that -2- usenet groups should
> be considered text unless specifically designated as an html-accepted
> group or that -3- html 'rights' should not be considered to be the same
> as text 'rights' in terms of what is and is not proper etiquette.

Before anyone starts a tirade about "plain text is old-fashioned",
please read my <http://www.rossde.com/internet/ASCII_mail.html> and its
ancillary <http://www.rossde.com/internet/ASCIIvsHTML.html>.

Also remember that the purpose of E-mail is to communicate.  You not
only want to send a message, but you also want the recipient to receive
your message.  By "receive", I don't mean only that the E-mail winds up
in the recipient's inbox; I also mean that the recipient receives the
content of your message in his or her mind.  For this to work
efficiently and smoothly, the message you send should not be in a format
that the recipient does not want to receive.

--

David E. Ross
<http://www.rossde.com/>

I am again filtering and ignoring all newsgroup messages posted
through GoogleGroups via Google's G2/1.0 user agent because of the
amount of spam from that source.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Html/text etiquette

Mike Easter-2
David E. Ross wrote:
> Mike Easter wrote:

>> I also think that html/ers might not agree with my opinions that -1-
>> html/ers should not email texters html or that -2- usenet groups should
>> be considered text unless specifically designated as an html-accepted
>> group or that -3- html 'rights' should not be considered to be the same
>> as text 'rights' in terms of what is and is not proper etiquette.
>
> Before anyone starts a tirade about "plain text is old-fashioned",
> please read my <http://www.rossde.com/internet/ASCII_mail.html>

I agree with a lot that is in here, but see below...

> Also remember that the purpose of E-mail is to communicate.

> For this to work
> efficiently and smoothly, the message you send should not be in a format
> that the recipient does not want to receive.

I think that the people who correspond 'back and forth' with me who use
html vs my plain text, 'hate' what happens to their marked up formatting
when it is handled by my plain text/ing of it - the loss of the format
of their choosing.

I think that 'in the first place' my (hypothetical and real) html
correspondent is not thinking about my being plain text when he writes
me - he is only thinking about how his email looks to *him* while he is
composing it.

He feels that what he is seeing while he is composing is what the
recipient me is going to be seeing when they/he/I read it. In my
particular and specific case in mind, this is supported by the fact that
he knows that I can send him html if I want to, and he further knows
that I can display his email however I want to.

Using that correspondent as a specific example, he prefers to email
html. And he emails a *lot* of people, many many more than I do.

He also prefers to top post. However, sometimes when a dialog develops^1
he reluctantly and 'difficultly' tries to 'synthesize' depictions of
where the conversational words are his (with asterisks and such) instead
of being familiar with what beneficially and smoothly happens with plain
text dialog.


^1 which of course he did not expect, because I think that most top
posters don't imagine that they are going to have a dialog in a
conversational style when the communication begins.

Plain texters carrying on a conversation with html/ers has some
similarities to trimming contextualizers carrying on a conversation with
top posters. It is a 'struggle' for both of them.


--
Mike Easter
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Html/text etiquette

Ed Mullen
Mike Easter wrote:

> David E. Ross wrote:
>> Mike Easter wrote:
>
>>> I also think that html/ers might not agree with my opinions that -1-
>>> html/ers should not email texters html or that -2- usenet groups
>>> should be considered text unless specifically designated as an
>>> html-accepted group or that -3- html 'rights' should not be
>>> considered to be the same as text 'rights' in terms of what is and is
>>> not proper etiquette.
>>
>> Before anyone starts a tirade about "plain text is old-fashioned",
>> please read my <http://www.rossde.com/internet/ASCII_mail.html>
>
> I agree with a lot that is in here, but see below...
>
>> Also remember that the purpose of E-mail is to communicate.
>
>> For this to work
>> efficiently and smoothly, the message you send should not be in a format
>> that the recipient does not want to receive.
>
> I think that the people who correspond 'back and forth' with me who use
> html vs my plain text, 'hate' what happens to their marked up formatting
> when it is handled by my plain text/ing of it - the loss of the format
> of their choosing.

I couldn't care less.  If you choose to only view plain text, that's
your choice and your issue (if one exists).  If I bold or italicize
something for stress, if I include a highlighted quotation in a
different font, it I include any other sort of formatting, and you
choose to ignore it, that's on you, not me.

It's 2010, not 1982 (Did you notice the change of centuries there?  And
what happened in the ensuing years?).  If you choose a life-style,
that's your choice.  You can ignore current styles and I know I can't do
anything about it.  And I don't care.  Live your life as you like.  Just
don't delude yourself into thinking that your choices are the norm.
They are not.  Hoisting decades-old arguments to the contrary don't
change the fact that the world has changed, and you haven't.

And, God forbid!!! Don't engage me in private email exchange because my
replies will be in HTML.  Oh, probably won't carry any significant
overhead, just a font def resulting in a minor percentage increase in
message size.  Again, demonstrating that your arguments, functionally
and quantitatively, are silly.  Oh, you can still mount your moral,
anachronistic, and historical arguments.  I'm not arguing with them.
Just their justification in 2010 vis-a-vis their basis of some decades ago.

God, don't we all have something better to argue about?  Something that
actually matters?  Something that actually impacts our lives, negatively
or positively?  Geez.  If this is what we're spending our time on my
comment is:  "Usenet and newsgroups are dying.  There's little here to
interest anyone with half a mind."




--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
Why is it that the guy who comes up behind you while you're waiting for
an elevator presses the already-lit button as though he has some magical
powers that you don't?
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Html/text etiquette

Jay Garcia
On 08.09.2010 22:17, Ed Mullen wrote:

 --- Original Message ---

> God, don't we all have something better to argue about?  Something that
> actually matters?  Something that actually impacts our lives, negatively
> or positively?  Geez.  If this is what we're spending our time on my
> comment is:  "Usenet and newsgroups are dying.  There's little here to
> interest anyone with half a mind."

How dare you post in sanity mode!! :-)


--
*Jay Garcia - Netscape/Flock Champion*
www.ufaq.org
Netscape - Firefox - SeaMonkey - Flock - Thunderbird
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Html/text etiquette

defaria
In reply to this post by Ed Mullen
On 09/08/2010 08:17 PM, Ed Mullen wrote:
It's 2010, not 1982 (Did you notice the change of centuries there?  And what happened in the ensuing years?).  If you choose a life-style, that's your choice.  You can ignore current styles and I know I can't do anything about it.  And I don't care.  Live your life as you like.  Just don't delude yourself into thinking that your choices are the norm. They are not.  Hoisting decades-old arguments to the contrary don't change the fact that the world has changed, and you haven't.
Well put!
And, God forbid!!! Don't engage me in private email exchange because my replies will be in HTML.  Oh, probably won't carry any significant overhead, just a font def resulting in a minor percentage increase in message size.  Again, demonstrating that your arguments, functionally and quantitatively, are silly.  Oh, you can still mount your moral, anachronistic, and historical arguments.  I'm not arguing with them. Just their justification in 2010 vis-a-vis their basis of some decades ago.

God, don't we all have something better to argue about?  Something that actually matters?  Something that actually impacts our lives, negatively or positively?  Geez.  If this is what we're spending our time on my comment is:  "Usenet and newsgroups are dying.  There's little here to interest anyone with half a mind."
Ed, just hit the "k" key and all will be better! This thread will never go anywhere productive. That's what I did... on my laptop...

Meantime, and speaking about discussing something of merit, here's one? In this 2010 world of Google where my contacts, calendaring information and gmail are all in the cloud and accessible from any computer or device (such as my smart phone) that I connect to the internet and it displays the same state of affairs everywhere, why then must I have to "k"ill this thread on my laptop only to find it still fresh and undead on my desktop? IOW why can't .msf files which maintain the state of my Usenet newsreading be hosted in the cloud?

You're right, Usenet is indeed dying and it's dying because of the mental attitude of people who started this thread and the "me too"'ers who still live in the psychedelic ASCII only '60's and further insist that everybody else be dragged down to that now 50 year old level!

Get your teletype out folks, there's discussing to be doing. Unfortunately I'll just be hitting the "k" key here...

If you really wish to discuss the issue I brought up start another thread because this threads now dead to me...
--
Andrew DeFaria
Why do toasters always have a setting that burns the toast to a horrible crisp no one would eat?

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Html/text etiquette

Mike Easter-2
Andrew DeFaria wrote:

> because this threads now dead to me...

Who cares whether this thread is or is not dead to you/ADF?

I certainly don't care one way or another whether you do or do not read
any more messages in this thread or contribute anything to this thread
or not.

Maybe you should just disappear from my radar screen altogether so that
I won't have to read about whether or not you choose to kill some thread
or another.

--
Mike Easter
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Html/text etiquette

David E. Ross-3
In reply to this post by David E. Ross-3
On 9/8/10 7:43 PM, Ed Mullen wrote [in part]:
> I previously wrote [also in part]:
>> Before anyone starts a tirade about "plain text is old-fashioned",
>> please read my<http://www.rossde.com/internet/ASCII_mail.html>  and its
>> ancillary<http://www.rossde.com/internet/ASCIIvsHTML.html>.
>>
>
> Why are we arguing about the size of a 4k message vs., hell, a 16k
> message transmission when that would be totally trivial on a 56K dial-up
> modem?

I too am on broadband.  But then my incoming E-mail is delayed while my
anti-virus application scans it.  A 4k ASCII message takes 1/4 as much
time for virus scanning as a 16k HTML message with the same content.

Scanning for viruses in E-mail attachments is important, even when the
attachments are graphics files (e.g., GIF, JPEG, PNG, BMP), the most
common form of attachment to HTML messages.  US-CERT (an agency within
the U.S. Department of Homeland Security) has issued a number of alerts
about such files containing malware that can affect a computer merely by
being displayed.  And, yes, graphics files do traverse the Internet as
attachments to but separate from their E-mail messages, not embedded
inline within the messages.  Graphics files are combined with E-mail
messages only when they reach the E-mail application.

--

David E. Ross
<http://www.rossde.com/>

I am again filtering and ignoring all newsgroup messages posted
through GoogleGroups via Google's G2/1.0 user agent because of the
amount of spam from that source.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Html/text etiquette

Tarkus-3
In reply to this post by Jay Garcia
On 9/8/2010 8:53 PM, Jay Garcia wrote:

> On 08.09.2010 22:17, Ed Mullen wrote:
>
>   --- Original Message ---
>
>> >  God, don't we all have something better to argue about?  Something that
>> >  actually matters?  Something that actually impacts our lives, negatively
>> >  or positively?  Geez.  If this is what we're spending our time on my
>> >  comment is:  "Usenet and newsgroups are dying.  There's little here to
>> >  interest anyone with half a mind."
> How dare you post in sanity mode!!:-)

Yes, that has no place here!
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Html/text etiquette

Tarkus-3
In reply to this post by defaria
On 9/8/2010 8:56 PM, Andrew DeFaria wrote:
> Meantime, and speaking about discussing something of merit, here's one?
> In this 2010 world of Google where my contacts, calendaring information
> and gmail are all in the cloud and accessible from any computer or
> device (such as my smart phone) that I connect to the internet and it
> displays the same state of affairs everywhere, why then must I have to
> "k"ill this thread on my laptop only to find it still fresh and undead
> on my desktop? IOW why can't .msf files which maintain the state of my
> Usenet newsreading be hosted in the cloud?

Wouldn't that be nice?  After getting used to IMAP some time ago for
email, it's really frustrating trying to use newsgroups on two different
computers.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Html/text etiquette

Tarkus-3
In reply to this post by Mike Easter-2
On 9/8/2010 9:04 PM, Mike Easter wrote:

> Andrew DeFaria wrote:
>
>> because this threads now dead to me...
>
> Who cares whether this thread is or is not dead to you/ADF?
>
> I certainly don't care one way or another whether you do or do not read
> any more messages in this thread or contribute anything to this thread
> or not.
>
> Maybe you should just disappear from my radar screen altogether so that
> I won't have to read about whether or not you choose to kill some thread
> or another.

Tools > Message Filters...

HTH.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Html/text etiquette

John McWilliams via TB
In reply to this post by Tarkus-3
  On 9/9/10   PDT 8:37 AM, Tarkus wrote:

> On 9/8/2010 8:56 PM, Andrew DeFaria wrote:
>> Meantime, and speaking about discussing something of merit, here's one?
>> In this 2010 world of Google where my contacts, calendaring information
>> and gmail are all in the cloud and accessible from any computer or
>> device (such as my smart phone) that I connect to the internet and it
>> displays the same state of affairs everywhere, why then must I have to
>> "k"ill this thread on my laptop only to find it still fresh and undead
>> on my desktop? IOW why can't .msf files which maintain the state of my
>> Usenet newsreading be hosted in the cloud?
>
> Wouldn't that be nice?  After getting used to IMAP some time ago for
> email, it's really frustrating trying to use newsgroups on two
> different computers.
Good idea, Andrew, and here's something you might try: Set your Profile
up on a server and see how it flows. I've been meaning to try this for a
couple of years, but never got a round tuit. Of course, do so with a
test profile....

--
john mcwilliams
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Html/text etiquette

Ron Hunter
In reply to this post by Tarkus-3
On 9/9/2010 10:34 AM, Tarkus wrote:

> On 9/8/2010 8:53 PM, Jay Garcia wrote:
>> On 08.09.2010 22:17, Ed Mullen wrote:
>>
>> --- Original Message ---
>>
>>> > God, don't we all have something better to argue about? Something that
>>> > actually matters? Something that actually impacts our lives,
>>> negatively
>>> > or positively? Geez. If this is what we're spending our time on my
>>> > comment is: "Usenet and newsgroups are dying. There's little here to
>>> > interest anyone with half a mind."
>> How dare you post in sanity mode!!:-)
>
> Yes, that has no place here!
Actually, I agree that there is little on USENET to interest anyone with
half a mind, but those of us with WHOLE minds find lots to be interested
in.  GRIN.

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Html/text etiquette

Ed Mullen
Ron Hunter wrote:

> On 9/9/2010 10:34 AM, Tarkus wrote:
>> On 9/8/2010 8:53 PM, Jay Garcia wrote:
>>> On 08.09.2010 22:17, Ed Mullen wrote:
>>>
>>> --- Original Message ---
>>>
>>>> > God, don't we all have something better to argue about? Something
>>>> that
>>>> > actually matters? Something that actually impacts our lives,
>>>> negatively
>>>> > or positively? Geez. If this is what we're spending our time on my
>>>> > comment is: "Usenet and newsgroups are dying. There's little here to
>>>> > interest anyone with half a mind."
>>> How dare you post in sanity mode!!:-)
>>
>> Yes, that has no place here!
> Actually, I agree that there is little on USENET to interest anyone with
> half a mind, but those of us with WHOLE minds find lots to be interested
> in. GRIN.
>

I ... I ... err ... uh ... Wait!  I ... umm ... had something to say but ...

Yeah!  There it is!  In my randomly selected signature below!  :-D

--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
"She's descended from a long line her mother listened to." - Gypsy Rose Lee
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Html/text etiquette

Ed Mullen
In reply to this post by defaria
Andrew DeFaria wrote:
>   On 09/08/2010 08:17 PM, Ed Mullen wrote:
>> It's 2010, not 1982 (Did you notice the change of centuries there? And
>> what happened in the ensuing years?). If you choose a life-style,
>> that's your choice. You can ignore current styles and I know I can't
>> do anything about it. And I don't care. Live your life as you like.
>> Just don't delude yourself into thinking that your choices are the
>> norm. They are not. Hoisting decades-old arguments to the contrary
>> don't change the fact that the world has changed, and you haven't.
> Well put!

Geez, I sure wish I remembered writing it!

>> God, don't we all have something better to argue about? Something that
>> actually matters? Something that actually impacts our lives,
>> negatively or positively? Geez. If this is what we're spending our
>> time on my comment is: "Usenet and newsgroups are dying. There's
>> little here to interest anyone with half a mind."
> Ed, just hit the "k" key and all will be better! This thread will never
> go anywhere productive. That's what I did... on my laptop...
>

I know, I know.  but the annoyance factor is today one of the most
interesting things about newsgroups.

> Meantime, and speaking about discussing something of merit, here's one?
> In this 2010 world of Google where my contacts, calendaring information
> and gmail are all in the cloud and accessible from any computer or
> device (such as my smart phone) that I connect to the internet and it
> displays the same state of affairs everywhere, why then must I have to
> "k"ill this thread on my laptop only to find it still fresh and undead
> on my desktop? IOW why can't .msf files which maintain the state of my
> Usenet newsreading be hosted in the cloud?

I may be living happily in 2010 but I just haven't embraced that
particular "advance."  I have a laptop and a system for making it "look
like" my main system so when I travel I have everything I need.  Clouds?
  Great song from the 70s but I ain't putting my data there!  :-D

"Rows and flows of angel hair and ice-cream castles in the air ..."

(And, if this were in HTML, I'd have italicized that last line instead
of quoting it.)  But, hey, I didn't want to burden anyone with an extra
<i> and </i>.  God forbid!

--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
I heard that in relativity theory, space and time are the same thing.
Einstein discovered this when he kept showing up three miles late to
meetings.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Html/text etiquette

Ed Mullen
In reply to this post by Tarkus-3
Tarkus wrote:

> On 9/8/2010 8:56 PM, Andrew DeFaria wrote:
>> Meantime, and speaking about discussing something of merit, here's one?
>> In this 2010 world of Google where my contacts, calendaring information
>> and gmail are all in the cloud and accessible from any computer or
>> device (such as my smart phone) that I connect to the internet and it
>> displays the same state of affairs everywhere, why then must I have to
>> "k"ill this thread on my laptop only to find it still fresh and undead
>> on my desktop? IOW why can't .msf files which maintain the state of my
>> Usenet newsreading be hosted in the cloud?
>
> Wouldn't that be nice? After getting used to IMAP some time ago for
> email, it's really frustrating trying to use newsgroups on two different
> computers.

I duplicated the profiles/drive designations on my main system and my
laptop.  When I'm ready to sync I just copy the profile from the main
system to the laptop.  Bang, cloned.  All in sync.

--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
Give a person a fish and you feed them for a day; teach that person to
use the Internet and they won't bother you for weeks.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Html/text etiquette

Tarkus-3
On 9/9/2010 6:50 PM, Ed Mullen wrote:

> Tarkus wrote:
>> On 9/8/2010 8:56 PM, Andrew DeFaria wrote:
>>> Meantime, and speaking about discussing something of merit, here's one?
>>> In this 2010 world of Google where my contacts, calendaring information
>>> and gmail are all in the cloud and accessible from any computer or
>>> device (such as my smart phone) that I connect to the internet and it
>>> displays the same state of affairs everywhere, why then must I have to
>>> "k"ill this thread on my laptop only to find it still fresh and undead
>>> on my desktop? IOW why can't .msf files which maintain the state of my
>>> Usenet newsreading be hosted in the cloud?
>>
>> Wouldn't that be nice? After getting used to IMAP some time ago for
>> email, it's really frustrating trying to use newsgroups on two different
>> computers.
>
> I duplicated the profiles/drive designations on my main system and my
> laptop.  When I'm ready to sync I just copy the profile from the main
> system to the laptop.  Bang, cloned.  All in sync.

I use a program called GoodSync that can sync wirelessly, but I like to
keep my laptop stripped down compared to my "main system" (also a
laptop, but much more powerful).  So I'd rather just sync the newsgroups
(and RSS feeds).  I'm guessing it's possible, but I just haven't looked
into it enough.  I wish there was something like Firefox Sync available
for Thunderbird.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Html/text etiquette

Ed Mullen
Tarkus wrote:

> On 9/9/2010 6:50 PM, Ed Mullen wrote:
>> Tarkus wrote:
>>> On 9/8/2010 8:56 PM, Andrew DeFaria wrote:
>>>> Meantime, and speaking about discussing something of merit, here's one?
>>>> In this 2010 world of Google where my contacts, calendaring information
>>>> and gmail are all in the cloud and accessible from any computer or
>>>> device (such as my smart phone) that I connect to the internet and it
>>>> displays the same state of affairs everywhere, why then must I have to
>>>> "k"ill this thread on my laptop only to find it still fresh and undead
>>>> on my desktop? IOW why can't .msf files which maintain the state of my
>>>> Usenet newsreading be hosted in the cloud?
>>>
>>> Wouldn't that be nice? After getting used to IMAP some time ago for
>>> email, it's really frustrating trying to use newsgroups on two different
>>> computers.
>>
>> I duplicated the profiles/drive designations on my main system and my
>> laptop. When I'm ready to sync I just copy the profile from the main
>> system to the laptop. Bang, cloned. All in sync.
>
> I use a program called GoodSync that can sync wirelessly, but I like to
> keep my laptop stripped down compared to my "main system" (also a
> laptop, but much more powerful). So I'd rather just sync the newsgroups
> (and RSS feeds). I'm guessing it's possible, but I just haven't looked
> into it enough. I wish there was something like Firefox Sync available
> for Thunderbird.

One more reason I use SeaMonkey:  All in one app.  Single profile for
browser, mail and newsgroups.

--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
It's lonely at the top, but you eat better.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Html/text etiquette

Jay Garcia
In reply to this post by Ed Mullen
On 09.09.2010 20:58, »Q« wrote:

 --- Original Message ---

> In <news:[hidden email]>,
> Ed Mullen <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> I couldn't care less.  If you choose to only view plain text, that's
>> your choice and your issue (if one exists).  If I bold or italicize
>> something for stress, if I include a highlighted quotation in a
>> different font, it I include any other sort of formatting, and you
>> choose to ignore it, that's on you, not me.
>
> Sure, and if you don't care whether what you send out is readable
> enough in other clients to communicate anything to anyone, it really
> doesn't matter what you send out.
>

What if ... what if Ed sends out a formatted message to be read by a
particular user as formatted and other users complain? It works both
ways, imho of course.

--
*Jay Garcia - Netscape/Flock Champion*
www.ufaq.org
Netscape - Firefox - SeaMonkey - Flock - Thunderbird

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Html/text etiquette

David E. Ross-3
In reply to this post by Mike Easter-2
On 9/8/10 10:47 AM, Mike Easter wrote:

> My opinion (where 'should' and such below mean in my opinion):
>
> Considering etiquette/netiquette in html vs plain text (hereafter in
> this message: 'text')  'correspondence' such as email and newsgroups
>
> The two 'formats' or rather the formatted vs the unformatted in terms of
> markup should not be considered 'equal' in terms of what is polite and
> what is not polite, instead, the html should be considered a 'higher'
> level which higher level requires /consideration/ of the 'lowest common
> denominator'.
>
> Maybe the world consists of those who 'prefer' to correspond in html
> (html/ers) and those who 'prefer' to (or in some circumstances *must*)
> correspond in plain text (texters); the html/ers should not email html
> to the texters, but instead should email them in plain text. Tbird
> permits configuration to email in html or text and further its
> addressbook permits configuration to email particular addresses in text
> instead of html.
>
> So, as regards email as opposed to newsgroups, one might consider that
> some correspondents will/should be emailing some people in html while
> emailing other people in text; while there will be other correspondents
> who are emailing everyone in text, since text is the 'lowest
> denominator'.  That is, I believe that it is rude for an html/er to html
> to someone who they 'know' (or should know) is text. -- whereas I don't
> believe that it is rude for a texter to email text to someone who they
> know or should/could know is html.
>
> Newsgroups are another matter because newsgroups are not email and one
> is messaging many instead of (usually emailing) one, but some of the
> same principles which apply to email should apply to newsgroups. In
> usenet (but this here is moz), very few newsgroups are for html, but are
> considered text only.  Some usenet groups consider html to be acceptable
> there, and the texters should understand and accept that - the nature of
> that group.  If they can't 'handle' the html, they shouldn't be there or
> whining about it.  A group should not be 'ambiguously' html vs text.  It
> should be html allowed or not.
>
> The mozilla news server is an unusual news server in that it 'allows'
> html while back-handedly discouraging it. This is quite unfortunate,
> because it gives rise to a lot of arguments from people who consider
> that the moz groups should be like usenet in general where html is
> limited to certain groups and not allowed in most others.
>
> Many news servers try to 'prevent' html posting, but some newsgroups are
> not 'intended' to be allowing html but the news server by which the
> message is posted is not configured to prevent all html.
>
> At this time the moz groups are 'run' ie server admin/ed by giganews.
> Giganews does not have a 'no html' posting guideline for its own servers
> and depends on the netiquette concepts to keep html out of the usenet
> groups where it isn't wanted and limited to those usenet groups where it
> is acceptable.  That is, giganews does not 'announce' an html filter
> like some news servers do.
>
> Since the moz server has some amount of 'retro-moderation' I believe
> that the moz retromoderators should develop a more 'comprehensive'
> (better?) policy than the one they have which is ambiguous and gives
> rise to friction within the groups.
>
> I also think that html/ers might not agree with my opinions that -1-
> html/ers should not email texters html or that -2- usenet groups should
> be considered text unless specifically designated as an html-accepted
> group or that -3- html 'rights' should not be considered to be the same
> as text 'rights' in terms of what is and is not proper etiquette.
>
>

Why am I seeing so many duplicate messages in this thread?

--

David E. Ross
<http://www.rossde.com/>

I am again filtering and ignoring all newsgroup messages posted
through GoogleGroups via Google's G2/1.0 user agent because of the
amount of spam from that source.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
1234