> Michael Lorrey wrote:
>
> > > I agree with what you are saying in principle, it's just that I don't think it applies
> > > to email. If even one member of the list cannot read HTML, why should the rest of us
> > > exclude this person, when it really serves no valid purpose? Is the ability to mix and
> > > match fonts going to make the list more useful than the opinions/thoughts/rants/agitprop
> > > of that individual? I doubt it, although suffering through the interminable abortion
> > > thread makes me doubt this conclusion.
> >
> > Flip it. Why should the rest of us who are moving ahead be held back by the stubborn
> > intransigence of those opposed to progress? This list is for forward thinkers.
>
> I'm not here to be on the cutting edge of everything. I'm here to *discuss* the cutting edge of
> everything. If I were to follow your logic, I would refuse to read anything not written in
> lobjan, or some other "cutting edge" language.
>
Is lobjan spoken by the 80 million people on the web today? Since most of those people use a mail
reader which is HTML capable, it is silly to hold out for the few iconoclasts.
Tell me, a skilled user of a slide rule can frequently calculate faster than a person using a hand
calculator. If this is true, then why are slide rules now museum peices? WHat do you think the Air
Force would have said to a contractor that insisted on doing all its engineering work with slide
rules? When I visit Seattle and go down to the International district, I can often see elderly asian
merchants still using abacuses, and whipping along pretty fiercely. However, I don't see them
getting much business from anyone but first generation immigrants, who still revere the aged.
> Luckily I don't. I don't follow any logic when it comes to discussion fora such as this one, as
> it strikes me as silly to allow some pointless ideal to get between me and those I wish to
> discuss things with. I'm here to learn things, to discuss things, to be part of a conversation,
> and it seems to me that rather than looking into "progress"-ive standards, we should support
> standard standards: something *everyone* can understand, not the 3l33t few. At this point in
> time, it seems that english expressed in ascii work pretty well. Maybe that will change
> eventually, but for now it strikes me as ludicrous to say to someone "I'm not interested in what
> you have to say because your text isn't 'cool' enough".
Sure it works pretty well. Englascii is a fine standard for may discussion type exchanges. However,
in order to deliver more complex content, we will eventually have to move to a type of markup
standard, to allow better organisation and presentation of information. As the average individual
starts getting a hundred or more email messages a day, I can easily forsee the need for use of
graphs and tables. I can read a graph with one glance, while it takes 10-30 seconds to digest even a
well laid out table. An ascii table with more than a couple rows and columns is a major effort of
deciphering, unless you happen to have the exact same font set on your reader.
>
>
> I fail to see how using ascii is holding you back. I understood perfectly well your point. How
> would HTML have made it clearer?
tell me if this comes out in any way that is usable:aaaaa bbbb cccc sdfghsh sghrt dhtdhrfth
dhrthcxgnjy
564 456 564756 6765 6765 8778 67866
1692 1368 1694268 20295 20295 26334 203598
5076 4104 5082804 60885 60885 79002 610794
15228 12312 15248412 182655 182655 237006 1832382
45684 36936 45745236 547965 547965 711018 5497146
137052 110808 137235708 1643895 1643895 2133054 16491438
411156 332424 411707124 4931685 4931685 6399162 49474314
1233468 997272 1235121372 14795055 14795055 19197486 148422942
3700404 2991816 3705364116 44385165 44385165 57592458 445268826
11101212 8975448 11116092348 133155495 133155495 172777374 1335806478
33303636 26926344 33348277044 399466485 399466485 518332122 4007419434
99910908 80779032 1.00045E+11 1198399455 1198399455 1554996366 12022258302
299732724 242337096 3.00134E+11 3595198365 3595198365 4664989098 36066774906
899198172 727011288 9.00403E+11 10785595095 10785595095 13994967294 1.082E+11
1348796976 1090516704 1.3506E+12 16178389260 16178389260 20992446552 1.623E+11
I didn't think so. Now you'll complain that I used gibberish, right? Ok how about this:
Object (and name) Date of encounter (TT) Distance Orbit arc
Reference Object (and name)
JD Calendar (AU)
(3361) Orpheus 2450857.28 1998 Feb. 12.78 0.1668 4 oppositions, 1982-1990 MPC
22668 (3361) Orpheus
(6037) 1988 EG 2450873.41 1998 Feb. 28.91 0.0318 5 oppositions, 1988-1998 MPC
31414 (6037) 1988 EG
1998 BZ7 2450878.18 1998 Mar. 5.68 0.1130 1-opposition, arc = 39 days MPC
31427 1998 BZ7
(8201) 1994 AH2 2450982.06 1998 June 17.56 0.1930 4 oppositions, 1981-1997 MPC
31008 (8201) 1994 AH2
1987 OA 2451046.05 1998 Aug. 20.55 0.1092 3 oppositions, 1987-1997 MPC
30469 1987 OA
(1865) Cerberus 2451142.25 1998 Nov. 24.75 0.1634 7 oppositions, 1971-1989 MPC
16007 (1865) Cerberus
1996 FG3 2451143.27 1998 Nov. 25.77 0.0384 3 oppositions, 1996-1998 MPC
31420 1996 FG3
1989 UR 2451145.67 1998 Nov. 28.17 0.0583 2 oppositions, 1989-1997 MPC
30756 1989 UR
1994 WR12 2451196.11 1999 Jan. 17.61 0.1277 1-opposition, arc = 35 days MPC
24576 1994 WR12
1991 VE 2451197.41 1999 Jan. 18.91 0.1573 2 oppositions, 1991-1997 MPC
30978 1991 VE
(6047) 1991 TB1 2451256.02 1999 Mar. 18.52 0.1632 4 oppositions, 1985-1996 MPC
27434 (6047) 1991 TB1
1992 SK 2451263.76 1999 Mar. 26.26 0.0559 5 oppositions, 1953-1996 MPC
28615 1992 SK
(1863) Antinous 2451270.12 1999 Apr. 1.62 0.1894 6 oppositions, 1948-1986 MPC
20313 (1863) Antinous
(6489) Golevka 2451332.31 1999 June 2.81 0.0500 2 oppositions, 1991-1995 MPC
25418 (6489) Golevka
1989 VA 2451504.39 1999 Nov. 21.89 0.1938 5 oppositions, 1989-1997 MPC
31005 1989 VA
This was just a small fraction of data on near earth asteroid encounters predicted over the next 30
years.
However, If I had used HTML, I could have presented the same information is a graphical format, with
links to other graphic formats, that would all have been much easier to use than 30 pages of an
ascii text table that doesn't even align properly.
-- TANSTAAFL!!! Michael Lorrey ------------------------------------------------------------ mailto:retroman@together.net Inventor of the Lorrey Drive MikeySoft: Graphic Design/Animation/Publishing/Engineering ------------------------------------------------------------ How many fnords did you see before breakfast today?