Re: Switch from Plain Text to HTML

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

Re: Switch from Plain Text to HTML

Larry Gusaas-4
On 2009/09/24 5:36 AM  Jay Garcia wrote:

> On 24.09.2009 03:26, Larry Gusaas wrote:
>
>  --- Original Message ---
>
>> On 2009/09/24 2:13 AM  Ron Hunter wrote:
>>> Larry Gusaas wrote:
>>>> On 2009/09/23 7:31 PM  Ron Hunter wrote:
>>>>> And your message would take about 2-5 times more space on the
>>>>> storage media, and take 2 to 5 times longer to transmit all over
>>>>> the internet.
>>>>
>>>> Where do you get those figures? I just did a test sending the same
>>>> content in three messages.
>>>> Plain text = 3KB
>>>> HTML = 4KB
>>>> Both plain text and HTML = 6KB
>>>>
>>>> That is far from 2-5 times more space.
>>>>
>>> That's one message.  Try looking at the sizes for 100 random
>>> messages in plain text compared with HTML.
>>
>> You need to compare messages with identical content, not random
>> messages to back up your claim. I tested your hypothesis and it
>> failed the test. You need to provide data to back up your claim or
>> else it is mere speculation.
>
> You said plain text - 3kb and both - 6 kb .. 2 x 3 = 6 :-)
>
> followup to .general

And your point is?

Sending  both HTML an plain text doubles the message size.
Sending just HTML does not cause a 2-5 times increase in space as was
claimed.

--
Larry I. Gusaas
Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan Canada
Website: http://larry-gusaas.com
"An artist is never ahead of his time but most people are far behind theirs." - Edgard Varese
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Switch from Plain Text to HTML

Jay Garcia
On 24.09.2009 17:40, Larry Gusaas wrote:

  --- Original Message ---

> And your point is?

Note smiley :-)

> Sending  both HTML an plain text doubles the message size.
> Sending just HTML does not cause a 2-5 times increase in space as was
> claimed.
>


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

Re: Switch from Plain Text to HTML

Ron Hunter
In reply to this post by Larry Gusaas-4
Larry Gusaas wrote:

> On 2009/09/24 5:36 AM  Jay Garcia wrote:
>> On 24.09.2009 03:26, Larry Gusaas wrote:
>>
>>  --- Original Message ---
>>
>>> On 2009/09/24 2:13 AM  Ron Hunter wrote:
>>>> Larry Gusaas wrote:
>>>>> On 2009/09/23 7:31 PM  Ron Hunter wrote:
>>>>>> And your message would take about 2-5 times more space on the
>>>>>> storage media, and take 2 to 5 times longer to transmit all over
>>>>>> the internet.
>>>>>
>>>>> Where do you get those figures? I just did a test sending the same
>>>>> content in three messages.
>>>>> Plain text = 3KB
>>>>> HTML = 4KB
>>>>> Both plain text and HTML = 6KB
>>>>>
>>>>> That is far from 2-5 times more space.
>>>>>
>>>> That's one message.  Try looking at the sizes for 100 random
>>>> messages in plain text compared with HTML.
>>>
>>> You need to compare messages with identical content, not random
>>> messages to back up your claim. I tested your hypothesis and it
>>> failed the test. You need to provide data to back up your claim or
>>> else it is mere speculation.
>>
>> You said plain text - 3kb and both - 6 kb .. 2 x 3 = 6 :-)
>>
>> followup to .general
>
> And your point is?
>
> Sending  both HTML an plain text doubles the message size.
> Sending just HTML does not cause a 2-5 times increase in space as was
> claimed.
>
Wrong!  However, that is an average.  If you eschew all the bells and
whistles of HTML, the result will be little larger than plain text, but
most HTML messages waste space vastly more than 2 to 5 times that of
plain text.
I get an email from my bank telling me that a direct deposit has been
posted to my account.  The message text is about 10 lines, but the email
is rather large, like several k. bytes.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Switch from Plain Text to HTML

Ron Hunter
In reply to this post by Larry Gusaas-4
Larry Gusaas wrote:

> On 2009/09/24 5:36 AM  Jay Garcia wrote:
>> On 24.09.2009 03:26, Larry Gusaas wrote:
>>
>>  --- Original Message ---
>>
>>> On 2009/09/24 2:13 AM  Ron Hunter wrote:
>>>> Larry Gusaas wrote:
>>>>> On 2009/09/23 7:31 PM  Ron Hunter wrote:
>>>>>> And your message would take about 2-5 times more space on the
>>>>>> storage media, and take 2 to 5 times longer to transmit all over
>>>>>> the internet.
>>>>>
>>>>> Where do you get those figures? I just did a test sending the same
>>>>> content in three messages.
>>>>> Plain text = 3KB
>>>>> HTML = 4KB
>>>>> Both plain text and HTML = 6KB
>>>>>
>>>>> That is far from 2-5 times more space.
>>>>>
>>>> That's one message.  Try looking at the sizes for 100 random
>>>> messages in plain text compared with HTML.
>>>
>>> You need to compare messages with identical content, not random
>>> messages to back up your claim. I tested your hypothesis and it
>>> failed the test. You need to provide data to back up your claim or
>>> else it is mere speculation.
>>
>> You said plain text - 3kb and both - 6 kb .. 2 x 3 = 6 :-)
>>
>> followup to .general
>
> And your point is?
>
> Sending  both HTML an plain text doubles the message size.
> Sending just HTML does not cause a 2-5 times increase in space as was
> claimed.
>
Specifically, the size is 9 to 10 k.  Ridiculous!
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Switch from Plain Text to HTML

Larry Gusaas-4
In reply to this post by Ron Hunter
On 2009/09/24 5:19 PM  Ron Hunter wrote:

> Larry Gusaas wrote:
>> On 2009/09/24 5:36 AM  Jay Garcia wrote:
>>> On 24.09.2009 03:26, Larry Gusaas wrote:
>>>
>>>  --- Original Message ---
>>>
>>>> On 2009/09/24 2:13 AM  Ron Hunter wrote:
>>>>> Larry Gusaas wrote:
>>>>>> On 2009/09/23 7:31 PM  Ron Hunter wrote:
>>>>>>> And your message would take about 2-5 times more space on the
>>>>>>> storage media, and take 2 to 5 times longer to transmit all over
>>>>>>> the internet.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Where do you get those figures? I just did a test sending the
>>>>>> same content in three messages.
>>>>>> Plain text = 3KB
>>>>>> HTML = 4KB
>>>>>> Both plain text and HTML = 6KB
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is far from 2-5 times more space.
>>>>>>
>>>>> That's one message.  Try looking at the sizes for 100 random
>>>>> messages in plain text compared with HTML.
>>>>
>>>> You need to compare messages with identical content, not random
>>>> messages to back up your claim. I tested your hypothesis and it
>>>> failed the test. You need to provide data to back up your claim or
>>>> else it is mere speculation.
>>>
>>> You said plain text - 3kb and both - 6 kb .. 2 x 3 = 6 :-)
>>>
>>> followup to .general
>>
>> And your point is?
>>
>> Sending  both HTML an plain text doubles the message size.
>> Sending just HTML does not cause a 2-5 times increase in space as was
>> claimed.
>>
> Wrong!  However, that is an average.  If you eschew all the bells and
> whistles of HTML, the result will be little larger than plain text,
> but most HTML messages waste space vastly more than 2 to 5 times that
> of plain text.
> I get an email from my bank telling me that a direct deposit has been
> posted to my account.  The message text is about 10 lines, but the
> email is rather large, like several k. bytes.

You say I am wrong but yet you agree with me. You said "If you eschew
all the bells and whistles of HTML, the result will be little larger
than plain text" . That is my point. HTML does not automatically
increase message size 2-5 times.

--
Larry I. Gusaas
Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan Canada
Website: http://larry-gusaas.com
"An artist is never ahead of his time but most people are far behind theirs." - Edgard Varese
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Switch from Plain Text to HTML

Terry R.-3
In reply to this post by Ron Hunter
The date and time was Thursday, September 24, 2009 4:20:52 PM, and on a
whim, Ron Hunter pounded out on the keyboard:

> Larry Gusaas wrote:
>> On 2009/09/24 5:36 AM  Jay Garcia wrote:
>>> On 24.09.2009 03:26, Larry Gusaas wrote:
>>>
>>>  --- Original Message ---
>>>
>>>> On 2009/09/24 2:13 AM  Ron Hunter wrote:
>>>>> Larry Gusaas wrote:
>>>>>> On 2009/09/23 7:31 PM  Ron Hunter wrote:
>>>>>>> And your message would take about 2-5 times more space on the
>>>>>>> storage media, and take 2 to 5 times longer to transmit all over
>>>>>>> the internet.
>>>>>> Where do you get those figures? I just did a test sending the same
>>>>>> content in three messages.
>>>>>> Plain text = 3KB
>>>>>> HTML = 4KB
>>>>>> Both plain text and HTML = 6KB
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is far from 2-5 times more space.
>>>>>>
>>>>> That's one message.  Try looking at the sizes for 100 random
>>>>> messages in plain text compared with HTML.
>>>> You need to compare messages with identical content, not random
>>>> messages to back up your claim. I tested your hypothesis and it
>>>> failed the test. You need to provide data to back up your claim or
>>>> else it is mere speculation.
>>> You said plain text - 3kb and both - 6 kb .. 2 x 3 = 6 :-)
>>>
>>> followup to .general
>> And your point is?
>>
>> Sending  both HTML an plain text doubles the message size.
>> Sending just HTML does not cause a 2-5 times increase in space as was
>> claimed.
>>
> Specifically, the size is 9 to 10 k.  Ridiculous!

You can't compare a few lines of plain text to the same of HTML.
Obviously there are always a few lines of HTML just to start, so if you
are going to test a 3 line plain text and a 3 line using HTML, you may
have "twice" the size.  But compare a full page of plain text and then
add in basic HTML tags.  It will add very little to the total, UNLESS
you create it in OL/Word, which bloats HTML two to three times all on
its own.



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: Switch from Plain Text to HTML

Jay Garcia
In reply to this post by Larry Gusaas-4
On 24.09.2009 18:26, Larry Gusaas wrote:

  --- Original Message ---

> On 2009/09/24 5:19 PM  Ron Hunter wrote:
>> Larry Gusaas wrote:
>>> On 2009/09/24 5:36 AM  Jay Garcia wrote:
>>>> On 24.09.2009 03:26, Larry Gusaas wrote:
>>>>
>>>>  --- Original Message ---
>>>>
>>>>> On 2009/09/24 2:13 AM  Ron Hunter wrote:
>>>>>> Larry Gusaas wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2009/09/23 7:31 PM  Ron Hunter wrote:
>>>>>>>> And your message would take about 2-5 times more space on the
>>>>>>>> storage media, and take 2 to 5 times longer to transmit all over
>>>>>>>> the internet.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Where do you get those figures? I just did a test sending the
>>>>>>> same content in three messages.
>>>>>>> Plain text = 3KB
>>>>>>> HTML = 4KB
>>>>>>> Both plain text and HTML = 6KB
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That is far from 2-5 times more space.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's one message.  Try looking at the sizes for 100 random
>>>>>> messages in plain text compared with HTML.
>>>>>
>>>>> You need to compare messages with identical content, not random
>>>>> messages to back up your claim. I tested your hypothesis and it
>>>>> failed the test. You need to provide data to back up your claim or
>>>>> else it is mere speculation.
>>>>
>>>> You said plain text - 3kb and both - 6 kb .. 2 x 3 = 6 :-)
>>>>
>>>> followup to .general
>>>
>>> And your point is?
>>>
>>> Sending  both HTML an plain text doubles the message size.
>>> Sending just HTML does not cause a 2-5 times increase in space as was
>>> claimed.
>>>
>> Wrong!  However, that is an average.  If you eschew all the bells and
>> whistles of HTML, the result will be little larger than plain text,
>> but most HTML messages waste space vastly more than 2 to 5 times that
>> of plain text.
>> I get an email from my bank telling me that a direct deposit has been
>> posted to my account.  The message text is about 10 lines, but the
>> email is rather large, like several k. bytes.
>
> You say I am wrong but yet you agree with me. You said "If you eschew
> all the bells and whistles of HTML, the result will be little larger
> than plain text" . That is my point. HTML does not automatically
> increase message size 2-5 times.
>

That is correct but only IF you don't post in formatted HTML. The more
you format the larger the message size.


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

Re: Switch from Plain Text to HTML

Ron Hunter
In reply to this post by Larry Gusaas-4
Larry Gusaas wrote:

> On 2009/09/24 5:19 PM  Ron Hunter wrote:
>> Larry Gusaas wrote:
>>> On 2009/09/24 5:36 AM  Jay Garcia wrote:
>>>> On 24.09.2009 03:26, Larry Gusaas wrote:
>>>>
>>>>  --- Original Message ---
>>>>
>>>>> On 2009/09/24 2:13 AM  Ron Hunter wrote:
>>>>>> Larry Gusaas wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2009/09/23 7:31 PM  Ron Hunter wrote:
>>>>>>>> And your message would take about 2-5 times more space on the
>>>>>>>> storage media, and take 2 to 5 times longer to transmit all over
>>>>>>>> the internet.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Where do you get those figures? I just did a test sending the
>>>>>>> same content in three messages.
>>>>>>> Plain text = 3KB
>>>>>>> HTML = 4KB
>>>>>>> Both plain text and HTML = 6KB
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That is far from 2-5 times more space.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's one message.  Try looking at the sizes for 100 random
>>>>>> messages in plain text compared with HTML.
>>>>>
>>>>> You need to compare messages with identical content, not random
>>>>> messages to back up your claim. I tested your hypothesis and it
>>>>> failed the test. You need to provide data to back up your claim or
>>>>> else it is mere speculation.
>>>>
>>>> You said plain text - 3kb and both - 6 kb .. 2 x 3 = 6 :-)
>>>>
>>>> followup to .general
>>>
>>> And your point is?
>>>
>>> Sending  both HTML an plain text doubles the message size.
>>> Sending just HTML does not cause a 2-5 times increase in space as was
>>> claimed.
>>>
>> Wrong!  However, that is an average.  If you eschew all the bells and
>> whistles of HTML, the result will be little larger than plain text,
>> but most HTML messages waste space vastly more than 2 to 5 times that
>> of plain text.
>> I get an email from my bank telling me that a direct deposit has been
>> posted to my account.  The message text is about 10 lines, but the
>> email is rather large, like several k. bytes.
>
> You say I am wrong but yet you agree with me. You said "If you eschew
> all the bells and whistles of HTML, the result will be little larger
> than plain text" . That is my point. HTML does not automatically
> increase message size 2-5 times.
>
And driving 100mph all the time doesn't always, or automatically, cause
accidents, but it greatly increases the probability, and is unwise, and
wasteful.
If you intend to not use any HTML features, why use it at all?
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Switch from Plain Text to HTML

Ron Hunter
In reply to this post by Terry R.-3
Terry R. wrote:

> The date and time was Thursday, September 24, 2009 4:20:52 PM, and on a
> whim, Ron Hunter pounded out on the keyboard:
>
>> Larry Gusaas wrote:
>>> On 2009/09/24 5:36 AM  Jay Garcia wrote:
>>>> On 24.09.2009 03:26, Larry Gusaas wrote:
>>>>
>>>>  --- Original Message ---
>>>>
>>>>> On 2009/09/24 2:13 AM  Ron Hunter wrote:
>>>>>> Larry Gusaas wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2009/09/23 7:31 PM  Ron Hunter wrote:
>>>>>>>> And your message would take about 2-5 times more space on the
>>>>>>>> storage media, and take 2 to 5 times longer to transmit all over
>>>>>>>> the internet.
>>>>>>> Where do you get those figures? I just did a test sending the
>>>>>>> same content in three messages.
>>>>>>> Plain text = 3KB
>>>>>>> HTML = 4KB
>>>>>>> Both plain text and HTML = 6KB
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That is far from 2-5 times more space.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's one message.  Try looking at the sizes for 100 random
>>>>>> messages in plain text compared with HTML.
>>>>> You need to compare messages with identical content, not random
>>>>> messages to back up your claim. I tested your hypothesis and it
>>>>> failed the test. You need to provide data to back up your claim or
>>>>> else it is mere speculation.
>>>> You said plain text - 3kb and both - 6 kb .. 2 x 3 = 6 :-)
>>>>
>>>> followup to .general
>>> And your point is?
>>>
>>> Sending  both HTML an plain text doubles the message size.
>>> Sending just HTML does not cause a 2-5 times increase in space as was
>>> claimed.
>>>
>> Specifically, the size is 9 to 10 k.  Ridiculous!
>
> You can't compare a few lines of plain text to the same of HTML.
> Obviously there are always a few lines of HTML just to start, so if you
> are going to test a 3 line plain text and a 3 line using HTML, you may
> have "twice" the size.  But compare a full page of plain text and then
> add in basic HTML tags.  It will add very little to the total, UNLESS
> you create it in OL/Word, which bloats HTML two to three times all on
> its own.
>
>
>
> Terry R.
which, of course, proves the point because those programs are the most
commonly used.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Switch from Plain Text to HTML

Robert Blair-2
In reply to this post by Larry Gusaas-4
On 9/24/2009 3:40 PM, Larry Gusaas wrote:

> On 2009/09/24 5:36 AM  Jay Garcia wrote:
>> On 24.09.2009 03:26, Larry Gusaas wrote:
>>
>>  --- Original Message ---
>>
>>> On 2009/09/24 2:13 AM  Ron Hunter wrote:
>>>> Larry Gusaas wrote:
>>>>> On 2009/09/23 7:31 PM  Ron Hunter wrote:
>>>>>> And your message would take about 2-5 times more space on the
>>>>>> storage media, and take 2 to 5 times longer to transmit all over
>>>>>> the internet.
>>>>> Where do you get those figures? I just did a test sending the same
>>>>> content in three messages.
>>>>> Plain text = 3KB
>>>>> HTML = 4KB
>>>>> Both plain text and HTML = 6KB
>>>>>
>>>>> That is far from 2-5 times more space.
>>>>>
>>>> That's one message.  Try looking at the sizes for 100 random
>>>> messages in plain text compared with HTML.
>>> You need to compare messages with identical content, not random
>>> messages to back up your claim. I tested your hypothesis and it
>>> failed the test. You need to provide data to back up your claim or
>>> else it is mere speculation.
>> You said plain text - 3kb and both - 6 kb .. 2 x 3 = 6 :-)
>>
>> followup to .general
>
> And your point is?
>
> Sending  both HTML an plain text doubles the message size.
> Sending just HTML does not cause a 2-5 times increase in space as was
> claimed.
>

I examined 20 E-mail messages formatted for HTML.  The largest was
188KB; the smallest was 210 bytes (not KB).

The average bloat factor for HTML-formatted messages (the increase in
message size to convey the same textual content as an ASCII-formatted
message) was 3.4 times.  Further, the average number of HTML errors was
9.1 errors per KB of file size.

For details -- including my methodology -- see my
<http://www.rossde.com/internet/ASCIIvsHTML.html>.

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

Go to Mozdev at <http://www.mozdev.org/> for quick access to
extensions for Firefox, Thunderbird, SeaMonkey, and other
Mozilla-related applications.  You can access Mozdev much
more quickly than you can Mozilla Add-Ons.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Switch from Plain Text to HTML

Larry Gusaas-4
In reply to this post by Ron Hunter
On 2009/09/24 6:51 PM  Ron Hunter wrote:
> Larry Gusaas wrote:
>> You say I am wrong but yet you agree with me. You said "If you eschew
>> all the bells and whistles of HTML, the result will be little larger
>> than plain text" . That is my point. HTML does not automatically
>> increase message size 2-5 times.
>>
> And driving 100mph all the time doesn't always, or automatically,
> cause accidents, but it greatly increases the probability, and is
> unwise, and wasteful.

And what does that analogy have to do with anything?

> If you intend to not use any HTML features, why use it at all?

That is not the issue being discussed. You had stated that using HTML
automatically increased message size 2-5 times. You have now agreed that
it doesn't.

Point made. Discussion over.

--
Larry I. Gusaas
Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan Canada
Website: http://larry-gusaas.com
"An artist is never ahead of his time but most people are far behind theirs." - Edgard Varese
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Switch from Plain Text to HTML

Larry Gusaas-4
In reply to this post by Robert Blair-2
On 2009/09/24 7:03 PM  David E. Ross wrote:

> On 9/24/2009 3:40 PM, Larry Gusaas wrote:
>  
>> And your point is?
>>
>> Sending  both HTML an plain text doubles the message size.
>> Sending just HTML does not cause a 2-5 times increase in space as was
>> claimed.
>>    
>
> I examined 20 E-mail messages formatted for HTML.  The largest was
> 188KB; the smallest was 210 bytes (not KB).
>
> The average bloat factor for HTML-formatted messages (the increase in
> message size to convey the same textual content as an ASCII-formatted
> message) was 3.4 times.  Further, the average number of HTML errors was
> 9.1 errors per KB of file size.
>
> For details -- including my methodology -- see my
> <http://www.rossde.com/internet/ASCIIvsHTML.html>.
>  

Very interesting. And totally unrelated to the original question.

Ron Hunter originally stated that sending a HTML message automatically
meant it was 2 to 5 times the size of a equivalent message in plain
text. He has since agreed with me that it doesn't. Of course the more
formating that is added to a message, the bigger it gets – but that is
not the point being discussed.

I am done with this thread. My point has been made, and agreed with.
Using HTML does not automatically increase messaged size 2-5 times.

--
Larry I. Gusaas
Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan Canada
Website: http://larry-gusaas.com
"An artist is never ahead of his time but most people are far behind theirs." - Edgard Varese

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

Re: Switch from Plain Text to HTML

Robert Blair-2
On 9/24/2009 6:27 PM, Larry Gusaas wrote:

> On 2009/09/24 7:03 PM  David E. Ross wrote:
>> On 9/24/2009 3:40 PM, Larry Gusaas wrote:
>>  
>>> And your point is?
>>>
>>> Sending  both HTML an plain text doubles the message size.
>>> Sending just HTML does not cause a 2-5 times increase in space as was
>>> claimed.
>>>    
>> I examined 20 E-mail messages formatted for HTML.  The largest was
>> 188KB; the smallest was 210 bytes (not KB).
>>
>> The average bloat factor for HTML-formatted messages (the increase in
>> message size to convey the same textual content as an ASCII-formatted
>> message) was 3.4 times.  Further, the average number of HTML errors was
>> 9.1 errors per KB of file size.
>>
>> For details -- including my methodology -- see my
>> <http://www.rossde.com/internet/ASCIIvsHTML.html>.
>>  
>
> Very interesting. And totally unrelated to the original question.
>
> Ron Hunter originally stated that sending a HTML message automatically
> meant it was 2 to 5 times the size of a equivalent message in plain
> text. He has since agreed with me that it doesn't. Of course the more
> formating that is added to a message, the bigger it gets – but that is
> not the point being discussed.
>
> I am done with this thread. My point has been made, and agreed with.
> Using HTML does not automatically increase messaged size 2-5 times.
>

No, but on average, it does increase the size 3.4 times.

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

Go to Mozdev at <http://www.mozdev.org/> for quick access to
extensions for Firefox, Thunderbird, SeaMonkey, and other
Mozilla-related applications.  You can access Mozdev much
more quickly than you can Mozilla Add-Ons.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Switch from Plain Text to HTML

PhillipJones
In reply to this post by Jay Garcia
Jay Garcia wrote:

> On 24.09.2009 17:40, Larry Gusaas wrote:
>
>  --- Original Message ---
>
>> And your point is?
>
> Note smiley :-)
>
>> Sending  both HTML an plain text doubles the message size.
>> Sending just HTML does not cause a 2-5 times increase in space as was
>> claimed.
>>
>
>
Hey if that's the case explain that to the honchos that ban HTML here so
they can allow it. :-)

--
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T.    "If it's Fixed, Don't Break it"
http://www.phillipmjones.net           http://www.vpea.org
mailto:[hidden email]
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Switch from Plain Text to HTML

PhillipJones
In reply to this post by Ron Hunter
Ron Hunter wrote:

> Larry Gusaas wrote:
>> On 2009/09/24 5:19 PM  Ron Hunter wrote:
>>> Larry Gusaas wrote:
>>>> On 2009/09/24 5:36 AM  Jay Garcia wrote:
>>>>> On 24.09.2009 03:26, Larry Gusaas wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>  --- Original Message ---
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2009/09/24 2:13 AM  Ron Hunter wrote:
>>>>>>> Larry Gusaas wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2009/09/23 7:31 PM  Ron Hunter wrote:
>>>>>>>>> And your message would take about 2-5 times more space on the
>>>>>>>>> storage media, and take 2 to 5 times longer to transmit all
>>>>>>>>> over the internet.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Where do you get those figures? I just did a test sending the
>>>>>>>> same content in three messages.
>>>>>>>> Plain text = 3KB
>>>>>>>> HTML = 4KB
>>>>>>>> Both plain text and HTML = 6KB
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That is far from 2-5 times more space.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's one message.  Try looking at the sizes for 100 random
>>>>>>> messages in plain text compared with HTML.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You need to compare messages with identical content, not random
>>>>>> messages to back up your claim. I tested your hypothesis and it
>>>>>> failed the test. You need to provide data to back up your claim or
>>>>>> else it is mere speculation.
>>>>>
>>>>> You said plain text - 3kb and both - 6 kb .. 2 x 3 = 6 :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> followup to .general
>>>>
>>>> And your point is?
>>>>
>>>> Sending  both HTML an plain text doubles the message size.
>>>> Sending just HTML does not cause a 2-5 times increase in space as
>>>> was claimed.
>>>>
>>> Wrong!  However, that is an average.  If you eschew all the bells and
>>> whistles of HTML, the result will be little larger than plain text,
>>> but most HTML messages waste space vastly more than 2 to 5 times that
>>> of plain text.
>>> I get an email from my bank telling me that a direct deposit has been
>>> posted to my account.  The message text is about 10 lines, but the
>>> email is rather large, like several k. bytes.
>>
>> You say I am wrong but yet you agree with me. You said "If you eschew
>> all the bells and whistles of HTML, the result will be little larger
>> than plain text" . That is my point. HTML does not automatically
>> increase message size 2-5 times.
>>
> And driving 100mph all the time doesn't always, or automatically, cause
> accidents, but it greatly increases the probability, and is unwise, and
> wasteful.
> If you intend to not use any HTML features, why use it at all?
Read the text better

--
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T.    "If it's Fixed, Don't Break it"
http://www.phillipmjones.net           http://www.vpea.org
mailto:[hidden email]
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Switch from Plain Text to HTML

David McRitchie-2
In reply to this post by Larry Gusaas-4
"Larry Gusaas" <[hidden email]> wrote in message news:[hidden email]...

> On 2009/09/24 7:03 PM  David E. Ross wrote:
>> On 9/24/2009 3:40 PM, Larry Gusaas wrote:
>>
>>> And your point is?
>>>
>>> Sending  both HTML an plain text doubles the message size.
>>> Sending just HTML does not cause a 2-5 times increase in space as was claimed.
>>>
>>
>> I examined 20 E-mail messages formatted for HTML.  The largest was
>> 188KB; the smallest was 210 bytes (not KB).
>>
>> The average bloat factor for HTML-formatted messages (the increase in
>> message size to convey the same textual content as an ASCII-formatted
>> message) was 3.4 times.  Further, the average number of HTML errors was
>> 9.1 errors per KB of file size.
>>
>> For details -- including my methodology -- see my
>> <http://www.rossde.com/internet/ASCIIvsHTML.html>.
>>
>
> Very interesting. And totally unrelated to the original question.
>
> Ron Hunter originally stated that sending a HTML message automatically meant it was 2 to 5 times the size of a equivalent message
> in plain text. He has since agreed with me that it doesn't. Of course the more formating that is added to a message, the bigger it
> gets – but that is not the point being discussed.
>
> I am done with this thread. My point has been made, and agreed with.
> Using HTML does not automatically increase messaged size 2-5 times.

You do realize that where you are permitted to post HTML, you are supposed
to  be including both HTML and plain text .   Google used to throw out newsgroup
messages that were HTML only,  though I doubt that is the case any more.
 

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

Re: Switch from Plain Text to HTML

Ron Hunter
In reply to this post by PhillipJones
Phillip Jones wrote:

> Ron Hunter wrote:
>> Larry Gusaas wrote:
>>> On 2009/09/24 5:19 PM  Ron Hunter wrote:
>>>> Larry Gusaas wrote:
>>>>> On 2009/09/24 5:36 AM  Jay Garcia wrote:
>>>>>> On 24.09.2009 03:26, Larry Gusaas wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  --- Original Message ---
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2009/09/24 2:13 AM  Ron Hunter wrote:
>>>>>>>> Larry Gusaas wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2009/09/23 7:31 PM  Ron Hunter wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> And your message would take about 2-5 times more space on the
>>>>>>>>>> storage media, and take 2 to 5 times longer to transmit all
>>>>>>>>>> over the internet.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Where do you get those figures? I just did a test sending the
>>>>>>>>> same content in three messages.
>>>>>>>>> Plain text = 3KB
>>>>>>>>> HTML = 4KB
>>>>>>>>> Both plain text and HTML = 6KB
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That is far from 2-5 times more space.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's one message.  Try looking at the sizes for 100 random
>>>>>>>> messages in plain text compared with HTML.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You need to compare messages with identical content, not random
>>>>>>> messages to back up your claim. I tested your hypothesis and it
>>>>>>> failed the test. You need to provide data to back up your claim
>>>>>>> or else it is mere speculation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You said plain text - 3kb and both - 6 kb .. 2 x 3 = 6 :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> followup to .general
>>>>>
>>>>> And your point is?
>>>>>
>>>>> Sending  both HTML an plain text doubles the message size.
>>>>> Sending just HTML does not cause a 2-5 times increase in space as
>>>>> was claimed.
>>>>>
>>>> Wrong!  However, that is an average.  If you eschew all the bells
>>>> and whistles of HTML, the result will be little larger than plain
>>>> text, but most HTML messages waste space vastly more than 2 to 5
>>>> times that of plain text.
>>>> I get an email from my bank telling me that a direct deposit has
>>>> been posted to my account.  The message text is about 10 lines, but
>>>> the email is rather large, like several k. bytes.
>>>
>>> You say I am wrong but yet you agree with me. You said "If you eschew
>>> all the bells and whistles of HTML, the result will be little larger
>>> than plain text" . That is my point. HTML does not automatically
>>> increase message size 2-5 times.
>>>
>> And driving 100mph all the time doesn't always, or automatically,
>> cause accidents, but it greatly increases the probability, and is
>> unwise, and wasteful.
>> If you intend to not use any HTML features, why use it at all?
> Read the text better
>
IF you don't use any of the HTML coding, then the message is no larger,
and no easier to read, and, in fact, TB will send it as plain text, as
witness the headers for many of the posts here on the subject.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Switch from Plain Text to HTML

Jay Garcia
On 25.09.2009 03:07, Ron Hunter wrote:
 
 --- Original Message ---
Phillip Jones wrote:
Ron Hunter wrote:
Larry Gusaas wrote:
On 2009/09/24 5:19 PM  Ron Hunter wrote:
Larry Gusaas wrote:
On 2009/09/24 5:36 AM  Jay Garcia wrote:
On 24.09.2009 03:26, Larry Gusaas wrote:

 --- Original Message ---

On 2009/09/24 2:13 AM  Ron Hunter wrote:
Larry Gusaas wrote:
On 2009/09/23 7:31 PM  Ron Hunter wrote:
And your message would take about 2-5 times more space on the storage media, and take 2 to 5 times longer to transmit all over the internet.

Where do you get those figures? I just did a test sending the same content in three messages.
Plain text = 3KB
HTML = 4KB
Both plain text and HTML = 6KB

That is far from 2-5 times more space.

That's one message.  Try looking at the sizes for 100 random messages in plain text compared with HTML.

You need to compare messages with identical content, not random messages to back up your claim. I tested your hypothesis and it failed the test. You need to provide data to back up your claim or else it is mere speculation.

You said plain text - 3kb and both - 6 kb .. 2 x 3 = 6 :-)

followup to .general

And your point is?

Sending  both HTML an plain text doubles the message size.
Sending just HTML does not cause a 2-5 times increase in space as was claimed.

Wrong!  However, that is an average.  If you eschew all the bells and whistles of HTML, the result will be little larger than plain text, but most HTML messages waste space vastly more than 2 to 5 times that of plain text.
I get an email from my bank telling me that a direct deposit has been posted to my account.  The message text is about 10 lines, but the email is rather large, like several k. bytes.

You say I am wrong but yet you agree with me. You said "If you eschew all the bells and whistles of HTML, the result will be little larger than plain text" . That is my point. HTML does not automatically increase message size 2-5 times.

And driving 100mph all the time doesn't always, or automatically, cause accidents, but it greatly increases the probability, and is unwise, and wasteful.
If you intend to not use any HTML features, why use it at all?
Read the text better

IF you don't use any of the HTML coding, then the message is no larger, and no easier to read, and, in fact, TB will send it as plain text, as witness the headers for many of the posts here on the subject.
This reply sent in HTML by using the SHIFT+REPLY method and choosing to send in HTML only.



-- 
Jay Garcia - Netscape/Flock Champion
www.ufaq.org
Netscape - Flock - Firefox - Thunderbird - Seamonkey Support

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

Re: Switch from Plain Text to HTML

Jay Garcia
In reply to this post by Ron Hunter
On 25.09.2009 03:07, Ron Hunter wrote:

  --- Original Message ---

> Phillip Jones wrote:
>> Ron Hunter wrote:
>>> Larry Gusaas wrote:
>>>> On 2009/09/24 5:19 PM  Ron Hunter wrote:
>>>>> Larry Gusaas wrote:
>>>>>> On 2009/09/24 5:36 AM  Jay Garcia wrote:
>>>>>>> On 24.09.2009 03:26, Larry Gusaas wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  --- Original Message ---
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2009/09/24 2:13 AM  Ron Hunter wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Larry Gusaas wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2009/09/23 7:31 PM  Ron Hunter wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> And your message would take about 2-5 times more space on the
>>>>>>>>>>> storage media, and take 2 to 5 times longer to transmit all
>>>>>>>>>>> over the internet.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Where do you get those figures? I just did a test sending the
>>>>>>>>>> same content in three messages.
>>>>>>>>>> Plain text = 3KB
>>>>>>>>>> HTML = 4KB
>>>>>>>>>> Both plain text and HTML = 6KB
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That is far from 2-5 times more space.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That's one message.  Try looking at the sizes for 100 random
>>>>>>>>> messages in plain text compared with HTML.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You need to compare messages with identical content, not random
>>>>>>>> messages to back up your claim. I tested your hypothesis and it
>>>>>>>> failed the test. You need to provide data to back up your claim
>>>>>>>> or else it is mere speculation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You said plain text - 3kb and both - 6 kb .. 2 x 3 = 6 :-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> followup to .general
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And your point is?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sending  both HTML an plain text doubles the message size.
>>>>>> Sending just HTML does not cause a 2-5 times increase in space as
>>>>>> was claimed.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Wrong!  However, that is an average.  If you eschew all the bells
>>>>> and whistles of HTML, the result will be little larger than plain
>>>>> text, but most HTML messages waste space vastly more than 2 to 5
>>>>> times that of plain text.
>>>>> I get an email from my bank telling me that a direct deposit has
>>>>> been posted to my account.  The message text is about 10 lines, but
>>>>> the email is rather large, like several k. bytes.
>>>>
>>>> You say I am wrong but yet you agree with me. You said "If you
>>>> eschew all the bells and whistles of HTML, the result will be little
>>>> larger than plain text" . That is my point. HTML does not
>>>> automatically increase message size 2-5 times.
>>>>
>>> And driving 100mph all the time doesn't always, or automatically,
>>> cause accidents, but it greatly increases the probability, and is
>>> unwise, and wasteful.
>>> If you intend to not use any HTML features, why use it at all?
>> Read the text better
>>
> IF you don't use any of the HTML coding, then the message is no larger,
> and no easier to read, and, in fact, TB will send it as plain text, as
> witness the headers for many of the posts here on the subject.

This reply sent in plain text.

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

Re: Switch from Plain Text to HTML

Jay Garcia
In reply to this post by Ron Hunter
On 25.09.2009 03:07, Ron Hunter wrote:

  --- Original Message ---

> Phillip Jones wrote:
>> Ron Hunter wrote:
>>> Larry Gusaas wrote:
>>>> On 2009/09/24 5:19 PM  Ron Hunter wrote:
>>>>> Larry Gusaas wrote:
>>>>>> On 2009/09/24 5:36 AM  Jay Garcia wrote:
>>>>>>> On 24.09.2009 03:26, Larry Gusaas wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  --- Original Message ---
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2009/09/24 2:13 AM  Ron Hunter wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Larry Gusaas wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2009/09/23 7:31 PM  Ron Hunter wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> And your message would take about 2-5 times more space on the
>>>>>>>>>>> storage media, and take 2 to 5 times longer to transmit all
>>>>>>>>>>> over the internet.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Where do you get those figures? I just did a test sending the
>>>>>>>>>> same content in three messages.
>>>>>>>>>> Plain text = 3KB
>>>>>>>>>> HTML = 4KB
>>>>>>>>>> Both plain text and HTML = 6KB
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That is far from 2-5 times more space.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That's one message.  Try looking at the sizes for 100 random
>>>>>>>>> messages in plain text compared with HTML.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You need to compare messages with identical content, not random
>>>>>>>> messages to back up your claim. I tested your hypothesis and it
>>>>>>>> failed the test. You need to provide data to back up your claim
>>>>>>>> or else it is mere speculation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You said plain text - 3kb and both - 6 kb .. 2 x 3 = 6 :-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> followup to .general
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And your point is?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sending  both HTML an plain text doubles the message size.
>>>>>> Sending just HTML does not cause a 2-5 times increase in space as
>>>>>> was claimed.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Wrong!  However, that is an average.  If you eschew all the bells
>>>>> and whistles of HTML, the result will be little larger than plain
>>>>> text, but most HTML messages waste space vastly more than 2 to 5
>>>>> times that of plain text.
>>>>> I get an email from my bank telling me that a direct deposit has
>>>>> been posted to my account.  The message text is about 10 lines, but
>>>>> the email is rather large, like several k. bytes.
>>>>
>>>> You say I am wrong but yet you agree with me. You said "If you
>>>> eschew all the bells and whistles of HTML, the result will be little
>>>> larger than plain text" . That is my point. HTML does not
>>>> automatically increase message size 2-5 times.
>>>>
>>> And driving 100mph all the time doesn't always, or automatically,
>>> cause accidents, but it greatly increases the probability, and is
>>> unwise, and wasteful.
>>> If you intend to not use any HTML features, why use it at all?
>> Read the text better
>>
> IF you don't use any of the HTML coding, then the message is no larger,
> and no easier to read, and, in fact, TB will send it as plain text, as
> witness the headers for many of the posts here on the subject.

So .. note the size of the HTML only reply - 133 lines and the plain
text reply is 76 lines.

--
Jay Garcia - Netscape/Flock Champion
www.ufaq.org
Netscape - Flock - Firefox - Thunderbird - Seamonkey Support
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
1234