Problem with this server?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
187 messages Options
123456 ... 10
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Problem with this server?

defaria
On 08/22/2010 07:08 PM, Mike Easter wrote:
Andrew DeFaria wrote:
Mike Easter wrote:
Andrew DeFaria wrote:

Technically... HTML is nothing but plain text. Since we're getting technical here...

A useful definition of plain text is that it is unformatted, as contrasted with various types of formatted text, such as styled or rich text, which styling includes markup languages.

But we weren't talking about "useful definitions" - we were talking about "technically speaking" - which is specifically why I chose the words that I chose. Don't change the point to bolster your not so hidden agenda.

When you chose your words, you chose your words badly.
I most certainly did not. I didn't chose words to fit your agenda... PURPOSELY!
You should have said that html is 'text-only' markup, as opposed to plain text which is not markup at all.
Here again you are telling me what I shoulda, woulda, coulda done. I don't do what you order and I never will - get used to it! Fact remains I didn't. Fact also remains that it's just plain text. Fact also remains that your beloved plain text also marks up. You're losing - strike that - lost this argument on all of these accounts.
So, html is not *plain* text,

Actually yes it is.

Actually no, it is not.
Yes... it is. It may additionally have mark up semantics - but so does your beloved plain text now doesn't it. Wait, don't admit it. That'd be admitting your wrong and we can't have that...
It is of the ASCII character set and nothing more.
That makes it 'text-only' as I explained, because the term 'plain text' means something that is *not* html because plain text is not marked up while html is/ can be/ marked up test-only (ascii if you must).
Make up any definitions you want on the spot to supposedly bolster your agenda - I'm not buying it. Plain text marks up here too. *'s make bold, /'s make italic, etc. Your plain text is not so plain and by your very argument you should post using it. So then, if you believe yourself and your argument you should never post here again. But that would also be admitting you're wrong and again, we can't have that.

And with this my discussion of this matter with you is over. It's clear you do not wish to be honest and will never cede that you are wrong - even when you are. I will not argue with such people about such things - ain't worth my time. I've already defeated your poor excuse of an argument anyway.
--
Andrew DeFaria
Why do you park in a driveway and drive on a parkway?

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

Re: Problem with this server?

Jay Garcia
On 22.08.2010 22:21, Andrew DeFaria wrote:

 --- Original Message ---

>  On 08/22/2010 07:08 PM, Mike Easter wrote:
>> Andrew DeFaria wrote:
>>> Mike Easter wrote:
>>>> Andrew DeFaria wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Technically... HTML is nothing but plain text. Since we're getting
>>>>> technical here...
>>>>
>>>> A useful definition of plain text is that it is unformatted, as
>>>> contrasted with various types of formatted text, such as styled or
>>>> rich text, which styling includes markup languages.
>>
>>> But we weren't talking about "useful definitions" - we were talking
>>> about "technically speaking" - which is specifically why I chose the
>>> words that I chose. Don't change the point to bolster your not so
>>> hidden agenda.
>>
>> When you chose your words, you chose your words badly.
> I most certainly did not. I didn't chose words to fit your agenda...
> PURPOSELY!
>> You should have said that html is 'text-only' markup, as opposed to
>> plain text which is not markup at all.
> Here again you are telling me what I shoulda, woulda, coulda done. I
> don't do what you order and I never will - get used to it! Fact remains
> I didn't. Fact also remains that it's just plain text. Fact also remains
> that your beloved plain text also marks up. You're losing - strike that
> - lost this argument on all of these accounts.
>>>> So, html is not *plain* text,
>>
>>> Actually yes it is.
>>
>> Actually no, it is not.
> Yes... it is. It may additionally have mark up semantics - but so does
> your beloved plain text now doesn't it. Wait, don't admit it. That'd be
> admitting your wrong and we can't have that...
>>> It is of the ASCII character set and nothing more.
>> That makes it 'text-only' as I explained, because the term 'plain
>> text' means something that is *not* html because plain text is not
>> marked up while html is/ can be/ marked up test-only (ascii if you must).
> Make up any definitions you want on the spot to supposedly bolster your
> agenda - I'm not buying it. Plain text marks up here too. *'s make bold,
> /'s make italic, etc. Your plain text is not so plain and by your very
> argument you should post using it. So then, if you believe yourself and
> your argument you should never post here again. But that would also be
> admitting you're wrong and again, we can't have that.
>
> And with this my discussion of this matter with you is over. It's clear
> you do not wish to be honest and will never cede that you are wrong -
> even when you are. I will not argue with such people about such things -
> ain't worth my time. I've already defeated your poor excuse of an
> argument anyway.
> --
> Andrew DeFaria <http://defaria.com>
> Why do you park in a driveway and drive on a parkway?

This argument pops up every now and then but not nearly as often as the
bottom/top posting dead horse that rises to whinny once again and again.

As far as I'm concerned it was settled years ago that technically
speaking, all html is is plain text wrapped in tags to make it formatted
for web pages and email but it's still text, period! Funny thing is that
if someone posts here in HTML you have the choice to read it as HTML or
... plain text .. fancy that, 'eh?

--
*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: Problem with this server?

»Q«
In reply to this post by PhillipJones
In <news:[hidden email]>,
Phillip Jones <[hidden email]> wrote:

> »Q« wrote:
> > In<news:[hidden email]>,
> > Phillip Jones<[hidden email]>  wrote:
> >
> >> »Q« wrote:
> >>> In<news:[hidden email]>,
> >>> Ed Mullen<[hidden email]>   wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> »Q« wrote:
> >>>>> In<news:[hidden email]>,
> >>>>> Phillip Jones<[hidden email]>    wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Tarkus wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 8/17/2010 4:16 PM, clay wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Is the server or this NG bjorken?
> >>>>>>>> I looked in today and I see all these posts sniveling about
> >>>>>>>> HTML vs plain text from like five years ago...
> >>>>>>>> Must'a fell into the wayback machine.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Heh.  I'm pretty sure five years from now you'll see the same
> >>>>>>> posts.
> >>>>>> No the exact same post. But the same subject.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> No by then. by popular demand of the consuming audience not
> >>>>>> (us) it will have changed to all HTML. Because they will want
> >>>>>> their internet experience to be just like their web experience.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The people who want their "internet" experience to be like their
> >>>>> web experience will just continue to use web forums instead of
> >>>>> newsgroups and facebook messages instead of e-mails.
> >>>>
> >>>> What about those of us who embrace both worlds?
> >>>
> >>> Probably you'll keep posting plain text in news groups.  I just
> >>> don't see Phillip's "popular demand" materializing.
> >>>
> >>>> I am a Usenet user.  There are some Web Forums I use too. And
> >>>> most of my online usage is the Web or client-based email.  But
> >>>> it is a mix.
> >>>
> >>> Me too.
> >>>
> >>>> It is a narrow and bad tack to make generalizations about users.
> >>>> The nice thing about "the Web" is that it can be almost anything.
> >>>
> >>> But you and I don't seem to be in the same boat Phillip was
> >>> talking about, "the people" who want everything to be like their
> >>> web experience.
> >>
> >> Oh I want usenet as well. In fact my experience with Jive
> >> Clearspace Form (written totally in javascript (yes you heard that
> >> right) in the adobe forums, a what ever the Mactopia Groups
> >> Microsoft has for Mac Users. I'd just as soon the it back 100
> >> percent  NNTP though in HTML format, for those.
> >
> > My point was that you're one of the few who want an all-html Usenet.
> > The "popular demand" you claimed would move newsgroups to switch to
> > html just isn't in evidence.  html-capable news clients have been
> > around since early in the first browser wars and there's been very
> > little demand for it all this time.
> >
> > (And yeah, I see you were predicting that popular demand will be
> > there in the future, but I just don't see any reason to think your
> > prediction might be correct.)
> >
>
> No what I said  please re read. Although I left off a couple of words
> in my last sentence.
>
>   I'd just as soon the it back 100 percent  NNTP though in HTML
> format, for those *that want or need it*.

That's still not terribly clear.  Do you mean that what you want is a
*single* newsgroup somewhere where it's ok to post html, and everybody
who wants to read and post html could go there?  (If so, it's a shame
Microsoft closed their "stationery" newsgroup. ;)

> No, there is a place for plain text such as here. But there also
> place on NNTP for people that want to use HTML.

You could set up a group in alt.binaries.* for it, but as you've
discovered already, people don't give away free access to the binary
parts of Usenet.

--
»Q«                                                              /"\
                                    ASCII Ribbon Campaign        \ /
                                     against html e-mail          X
                                 <http://www.asciiribbon.org/>   / \
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Problem with this server?

»Q«
In reply to this post by defaria
In <news:[hidden email]>,
Andrew DeFaria <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Technically... HTML is nothing but plain text. Since we're getting
> technical here...

To make that claim, you have to ignore such technicalities as MIME
types.  And if you do that, pictures and movies on Usenet are also
plain text.  But you still can't post them or html to any plain text
group in a reliable way.

--
»Q«                                                              /"\
                                    ASCII Ribbon Campaign        \ /
                                     against html e-mail          X
                                 <http://www.asciiribbon.org/>   / \
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Problem with this server?

defaria
On 08/22/2010 08:56 PM, »Q« wrote:
In <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="news:6padnWE-KarvJO3RnZ2dnUVZ_q-dnZ2d@mozilla.org"><news:6padnWE-KarvJO3RnZ2dnUVZ_q-dnZ2d@...>, Andrew DeFaria [hidden email] wrote:
Technically... HTML is nothing but plain text. Since we're getting technical here...
To make that claim, you have to ignore such technicalities as MIME types.
MIME types != HTML.
And if you do that, pictures and movies on Usenet are also plain text. But you still can't post them or html to any plain text group in a reliable way.
They are not of Contant-Type "text/html". I was talking about HTML - not other content types.
--
Andrew DeFaria
Give a man a match, and he'll be warm for a night. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

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

Re: Problem with this server?

»Q«
In reply to this post by Jay Garcia
In <news:[hidden email]>,
Jay Garcia <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Funny thing is that if someone posts here in HTML you have the choice
> to read it as HTML or ... plain text .. fancy that, 'eh?

Thunderbird does a pretty decent job of converting
Thunderbird-generated html into readable plain text.  But
Thunderbird-generated html is riddled with weird anomalies, and most
other converters haven't bothered the reverse-engineering needed to
deal with all its quirks.

So saying that you have the option of reading it as plain text is like
saying that you have the option of viewing IE-only web pages properly,
as long as you use the client it was created for.  And of course the
problem is interoperability -- not everyone wants to use that client.
(That goes for both IE and Thunderbird. ;)

A couple years ago, there was some blog talk about setting up a
project to standardize a subset of html for use in e-mail, which would
be a great first step toward interoperability.  AFAIK, it died due to
lack of interest.  JoeS, do you know if there's any indication that
idea may get some traction?

--
»Q«                                                              /"\
                                    ASCII Ribbon Campaign        \ /
                                     against html e-mail          X
                                 <http://www.asciiribbon.org/>   / \
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Problem with this server?

»Q«
In reply to this post by defaria
In <news:[hidden email]>,
Andrew DeFaria <[hidden email]> wrote:

> They are not of Contant-Type "text/html".

Neither is plain text, which has content type 'text/plain'.  You were
discussing those two (technically different) types of content.

> I was talking about HTML - not other content types.

And I brought up other MIME types to point out that ignoring the
technical distinction between MIME types, implicit in your argument,
leads to much silliness.

--
»Q«                                                              /"\
                                    ASCII Ribbon Campaign        \ /
                                     against html e-mail          X
                                 <http://www.asciiribbon.org/>   / \
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Problem with this server?

defaria
On 08/22/2010 09:40 PM, »Q« wrote:
In <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="news:7vSdnfPxsMtPbuzRnZ2dnUVZ_s-dnZ2d@mozilla.org"><news:7vSdnfPxsMtPbuzRnZ2dnUVZ_s-dnZ2d@...>, Andrew DeFaria [hidden email] wrote:
They are not of Contant-Type "text/html".
Neither is plain text, which has content type 'text/plain'. You were discussing those two (technically different) types of content.
I was talking about HTML - not other content types.
And I brought up other MIME types to point out that ignoring the technical distinction between MIME types, implicit in your argument, leads to much silliness.
Well "technically" (there's that word again) you're right - even base64 mpg video is "technically" plain text!

However it is you who is dragging this into ridiculous places. You can read "plain" text and you can read HTML. You can't read an mpg.
--
Andrew DeFaria
C:\WINDOWS C:\WINDOWS\GO C:\PC\CRAWL

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

Re: Problem with this server?

PhillipJones
In reply to this post by »Q«
»Q« wrote:

> In<news:[hidden email]>,
> Phillip Jones<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>
>> »Q« wrote:
>>> In<news:[hidden email]>,
>>> Phillip Jones<[hidden email]>   wrote:
>>>
>>>> »Q« wrote:
>>>>> In<news:[hidden email]>,
>>>>> Ed Mullen<[hidden email]>    wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> »Q« wrote:
>>>>>>> In<news:[hidden email]>,
>>>>>>> Phillip Jones<[hidden email]>     wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Tarkus wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 8/17/2010 4:16 PM, clay wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Is the server or this NG bjorken?
>>>>>>>>>> I looked in today and I see all these posts sniveling about
>>>>>>>>>> HTML vs plain text from like five years ago...
>>>>>>>>>> Must'a fell into the wayback machine.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Heh.  I'm pretty sure five years from now you'll see the same
>>>>>>>>> posts.
>>>>>>>> No the exact same post. But the same subject.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No by then. by popular demand of the consuming audience not
>>>>>>>> (us) it will have changed to all HTML. Because they will want
>>>>>>>> their internet experience to be just like their web experience.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The people who want their "internet" experience to be like their
>>>>>>> web experience will just continue to use web forums instead of
>>>>>>> newsgroups and facebook messages instead of e-mails.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What about those of us who embrace both worlds?
>>>>>
>>>>> Probably you'll keep posting plain text in news groups.  I just
>>>>> don't see Phillip's "popular demand" materializing.
>>>>>
>>>>>> I am a Usenet user.  There are some Web Forums I use too. And
>>>>>> most of my online usage is the Web or client-based email.  But
>>>>>> it is a mix.
>>>>>
>>>>> Me too.
>>>>>
>>>>>> It is a narrow and bad tack to make generalizations about users.
>>>>>> The nice thing about "the Web" is that it can be almost anything.
>>>>>
>>>>> But you and I don't seem to be in the same boat Phillip was
>>>>> talking about, "the people" who want everything to be like their
>>>>> web experience.
>>>>
>>>> Oh I want usenet as well. In fact my experience with Jive
>>>> Clearspace Form (written totally in javascript (yes you heard that
>>>> right) in the adobe forums, a what ever the Mactopia Groups
>>>> Microsoft has for Mac Users. I'd just as soon the it back 100
>>>> percent  NNTP though in HTML format, for those.
>>>
>>> My point was that you're one of the few who want an all-html Usenet.
>>> The "popular demand" you claimed would move newsgroups to switch to
>>> html just isn't in evidence.  html-capable news clients have been
>>> around since early in the first browser wars and there's been very
>>> little demand for it all this time.
>>>
>>> (And yeah, I see you were predicting that popular demand will be
>>> there in the future, but I just don't see any reason to think your
>>> prediction might be correct.)
>>>
>>
>> No what I said  please re read. Although I left off a couple of words
>> in my last sentence.
>>
>>    I'd just as soon the it back 100 percent  NNTP though in HTML
>> format, for those *that want or need it*.
>
> That's still not terribly clear.  Do you mean that what you want is a
> *single* newsgroup somewhere where it's ok to post html, and everybody
> who wants to read and post html could go there?  (If so, it's a shame
> Microsoft closed their "stationery" newsgroup. ;)

Yes  that actually what I am trying to say.

>> No, there is a place for plain text such as here. But there also
>> place on NNTP for people that want to use HTML.
>
> You could set up a group in alt.binaries.* for it, but as you've
> discovered already, people don't give away free access to the binary
> parts of Usenet.
>

We've found a NNTP Server that has actually set up a group for us.
at albasani.net.  the group is albasani.mozilla. And just because it
allows HTML doesn't mean every post is HTML many times a post is HTML
and the Comments is plain Text.

You have to sign up to get on the server (username and Password) another
fellow is looking into getting on another server that has no
limitations. So things are looking up.

There is room for both.


--
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T.        "If it's Fixed, Don't Break it"
http://www.phillipmjones.net/       mailto:[hidden email]

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

Re: Problem with this server?

Ed Mullen
Phillip Jones wrote:

> »Q« wrote:
>> In<news:[hidden email]>,
>> Phillip Jones<[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> »Q« wrote:
>>>> In<news:[hidden email]>,
>>>> Phillip Jones<[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> »Q« wrote:
>>>>>> In<news:[hidden email]>,
>>>>>> Ed Mullen<[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> »Q« wrote:
>>>>>>>> In<news:[hidden email]>,
>>>>>>>> Phillip Jones<[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Tarkus wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 8/17/2010 4:16 PM, clay wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Is the server or this NG bjorken?
>>>>>>>>>>> I looked in today and I see all these posts sniveling about
>>>>>>>>>>> HTML vs plain text from like five years ago...
>>>>>>>>>>> Must'a fell into the wayback machine.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Heh. I'm pretty sure five years from now you'll see the same
>>>>>>>>>> posts.
>>>>>>>>> No the exact same post. But the same subject.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No by then. by popular demand of the consuming audience not
>>>>>>>>> (us) it will have changed to all HTML. Because they will want
>>>>>>>>> their internet experience to be just like their web experience.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The people who want their "internet" experience to be like their
>>>>>>>> web experience will just continue to use web forums instead of
>>>>>>>> newsgroups and facebook messages instead of e-mails.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What about those of us who embrace both worlds?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Probably you'll keep posting plain text in news groups. I just
>>>>>> don't see Phillip's "popular demand" materializing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am a Usenet user. There are some Web Forums I use too. And
>>>>>>> most of my online usage is the Web or client-based email. But
>>>>>>> it is a mix.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Me too.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is a narrow and bad tack to make generalizations about users.
>>>>>>> The nice thing about "the Web" is that it can be almost anything.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But you and I don't seem to be in the same boat Phillip was
>>>>>> talking about, "the people" who want everything to be like their
>>>>>> web experience.
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh I want usenet as well. In fact my experience with Jive
>>>>> Clearspace Form (written totally in javascript (yes you heard that
>>>>> right) in the adobe forums, a what ever the Mactopia Groups
>>>>> Microsoft has for Mac Users. I'd just as soon the it back 100
>>>>> percent NNTP though in HTML format, for those.
>>>>
>>>> My point was that you're one of the few who want an all-html Usenet.
>>>> The "popular demand" you claimed would move newsgroups to switch to
>>>> html just isn't in evidence. html-capable news clients have been
>>>> around since early in the first browser wars and there's been very
>>>> little demand for it all this time.
>>>>
>>>> (And yeah, I see you were predicting that popular demand will be
>>>> there in the future, but I just don't see any reason to think your
>>>> prediction might be correct.)
>>>>
>>>
>>> No what I said please re read. Although I left off a couple of words
>>> in my last sentence.
>>>
>>> I'd just as soon the it back 100 percent NNTP though in HTML
>>> format, for those *that want or need it*.
>>
>> That's still not terribly clear. Do you mean that what you want is a
>> *single* newsgroup somewhere where it's ok to post html, and everybody
>> who wants to read and post html could go there? (If so, it's a shame
>> Microsoft closed their "stationery" newsgroup. ;)
>
> Yes that actually what I am trying to say.
>
>>> No, there is a place for plain text such as here. But there also
>>> place on NNTP for people that want to use HTML.
>>
>> You could set up a group in alt.binaries.* for it, but as you've
>> discovered already, people don't give away free access to the binary
>> parts of Usenet.
>>
>
> We've found a NNTP Server that has actually set up a group for us.
> at albasani.net. the group is albasani.mozilla. And just because it
> allows HTML doesn't mean every post is HTML many times a post is HTML
> and the Comments is plain Text.
>
> You have to sign up to get on the server (username and Password) another
> fellow is looking into getting on another server that has no
> limitations. So things are looking up.
>
> There is room for both.
>
>

When the multimedia group on news.mozilla.org was viable for testing
binary and multimedia content messages I watched it for a while.  Never
found it useful at all.  I mean, ok, if I want to send HTML email to a
friend who accepts such, what's the problem?  We send back and forth
with no problem.

I really have no desire to get into embedding binary data in emails.
HTML and binary attachments are fine.  Besides.  If I want to share a
binary I upload it to my Web server and email my friends a link.  Much
more efficient.

I know, I know, Phil and some others have some specific wants in this
regard. I just don't see what the pressing need is.  And I sure don't
see any pressing need for mozilla.org to host such a site.

That said, the way in which this was all handled sucked.  No surprises
but it did suck.  Talk about alienation of affection!

--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net/
Don't use a big word where a diminutive one will suffice.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Problem with this server?

Joy Beeson
In reply to this post by Jay Garcia
On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 22:35:19 -0500, Jay Garcia
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> As far as I'm concerned it was settled years ago that technically
> speaking, all html is is plain text wrapped in tags to make it formatted
> for web pages and email but it's still text, period! Funny thing is that
> if someone posts here in HTML you have the choice to read it as HTML or
> ... plain text .. fancy that, 'eh?

<p> Depends on whether the HTML is hypertext or the output
        of  some crossbred graphic-design/hypertext program.  
        There are quite a lot of uses for graphic design with a
        little text here and there, but text it ain't and it's really,
really hard to find three lines of text buried under a
        hundred and fifty lines of mark-up.  

<!--
--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net
http://roughsewing.home.comcast.net/ 
The above message is a Usenet post.
I don't recall having given anyone permission to use it on a Web site.
-->
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Problem with this server?

Terry R.-3
On 8/23/2010 7:51 PM On a whim, Joy Beeson pounded out on the keyboard

> On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 22:35:19 -0500, Jay Garcia
> <[hidden email]>  wrote:
>
>> As far as I'm concerned it was settled years ago that technically
>> speaking, all html is is plain text wrapped in tags to make it formatted
>> for web pages and email but it's still text, period! Funny thing is that
>> if someone posts here in HTML you have the choice to read it as HTML or
>> ... plain text .. fancy that, 'eh?
>
> <p> Depends on whether the HTML is hypertext or the output
> of  some crossbred graphic-design/hypertext program.
> There are quite a lot of uses for graphic design with a
> little text here and there, but text it ain't and it's really,
> really hard to find three lines of text buried under a
> hundred and fifty lines of mark-up.
>
> <!--

Not only is that rare, but that's where "Find" or "Search" comes in handy...

And regardless, it IS text if you compose it with a plain text editor
like Notepad, as I do.  Rename an HTML/HTM file to .TXT and any plain
text editor will open it.  Or Shift right-click (Windows) an HTML/HTM
file and select "Open with" and choose your plain text editor of choice.

And you forgot to close your paragraph tag...

Terry R.
--
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Problem with this server?

Ed Mullen
Terry R. wrote:
> On 8/23/2010 7:51 PM On a whim, Joy Beeson pounded out on the keyboard
>
> And you forgot to close your paragraph tag...

Actually, the specs don't /require/ closing the <p> tag.

--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net/
The obituaries in the newspaper prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that
people die in alphabetical order.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Problem with this server?

defaria
On 08/24/2010 09:36 AM, Ed Mullen wrote:
Terry R. wrote:
On 8/23/2010 7:51 PM On a whim, Joy Beeson pounded out on the keyboard

And you forgot to close your paragraph tag...
Actually, the specs don't /require/ closing the <p> tag.
But validators do - good form is good form...
--
Andrew DeFaria
How come abbreviated is such a long word?

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

Re: Problem with this server?

Tarkus-3
In reply to this post by Ed Mullen
On 8/24/2010 9:36 AM, Ed Mullen wrote:
> Terry R. wrote:
>> On 8/23/2010 7:51 PM On a whim, Joy Beeson pounded out on the keyboard
>>
>> And you forgot to close your paragraph tag...
>
> Actually, the specs don't /require/ closing the <p> tag.

Please don't waste my bandwidth with your italics modifiers.  ;)
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Problem with this server?

Ed Mullen
In reply to this post by defaria
Andrew DeFaria wrote:

>   On 08/24/2010 09:36 AM, Ed Mullen wrote:
>> Terry R. wrote:
>>> On 8/23/2010 7:51 PM On a whim, Joy Beeson pounded out on the keyboard
>>>
>>> And you forgot to close your paragraph tag...
>> Actually, the specs don't /require/ closing the <p> tag.
> But validators do - good form is good form...
> --
> Andrew DeFaria <http://defaria.com>
> How come abbreviated is such a long word?

Actually, the W3C Validator <http://validator.w3.org/> does not.  Try it
yourself.

--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net/
Why do we drive on parkways and park on driveways?
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Problem with this server?

Mike Easter-2
In reply to this post by Tarkus-3
Tarkus wrote:

>> Actually, the specs don't /require/ closing the <p> tag.
>
> Please don't waste my bandwidth with your italics modifiers.  ;)

Ha!


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

Re: Problem with this server?

Ed Mullen
In reply to this post by Tarkus-3
Tarkus wrote:
> On 8/24/2010 9:36 AM, Ed Mullen wrote:
>> Terry R. wrote:
>>> On 8/23/2010 7:51 PM On a whim, Joy Beeson pounded out on the keyboard
>>>
>>> And you forgot to close your paragraph tag...
>>
>> Actually, the specs don't /require/ closing the <p> tag.
>
> Please don't waste my bandwidth with your italics modifiers. ;)

:-D

--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net/
"Love is like war: easy to begin but very hard to stop." - H. L. Mencken
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Problem with this server?

Terry R.-3
In reply to this post by Ed Mullen
On 8/24/2010 9:36 AM On a whim, Ed Mullen pounded out on the keyboard

> Terry R. wrote:
>> On 8/23/2010 7:51 PM On a whim, Joy Beeson pounded out on the keyboard
>>
>> And you forgot to close your paragraph tag...
>
> Actually, the specs don't /require/ closing the<p>  tag.
>

If almost every reference declares that there is no difference between
the usage of the p tag in HTML or XHTML, and the XHTML reference states
that every element must ALWAYS be closed, I would say it should also be
closed in HTML.


Terry R.
--
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Problem with this server?

PhillipJones
In reply to this post by Ed Mullen
Ed Mullen wrote:
-------------------snip-------------------

> I know, I know, Phil and some others have some specific wants in this
> regard. I just don't see what the pressing need is.  And I sure don't
> see any pressing need for mozilla.org to host such a site.
>
> That said, the way in which this was all handled sucked.  No surprises
> but it did suck.  Talk about alienation of affection!
>
Who says I want MTTM to return. My argument has been, that there should
be room for both camps.

we now have a replacement for NTTM and Possibly another.

For Plain Text-ers that want to live in the 60's that's fine.

For others that want to be more modern That's fine , too.
There is room on NNTP/USENET for both camps.

--
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T.        "If it's Fixed, Don't Break it"
http://www.phillipmjones.net/       mailto:[hidden email]
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
123456 ... 10