HTML list

What Gary proposed, as far as I can see, consists of two things...

1. Extend ASCI
2. Add audio

HTML doesn't provide for either of these things. Fonts are still the same
problem as always. Until we get embedded fonts ASCI is the absolute king
of getting things to display correctly on different machines. Of course
you can send gifs with any kind of mail.

The idea of an audio list is good, but not realistic given today's
bandwidth (for both server and subscriber). A web or ftp site where users
could post their files would be much better. People could post to this
list to reference a given file on the audio site.

Carl

> What Gary proposed, as far as I can see, consists of two things...
>
> 1. Extend ASCI
> 2. Add audio
>
> HTML doesn't provide for either of these things.

Well, HTML provides a means of embedding attachments of various sorts,
including graphics and sound into a message, and tagging them to specific
places in the text. That's a big improvement over to just a nondescript
series of attachments. And it's not so much extended ASCII (it looks like
that's already available for most of us) as much as formatted text -
headers, indentation, italicization, lists, colors, etc.

But more importantly, what a separate HTML list would ensure two things:
1. People who subscribe to the HTML list will be those who can
view more than boring ol' ASCII. People who use text-only Email
would not subscribe to this list. Or perhaps more importantly,
we'll have a venue for sending messages about microtones that
use graphic and sound examples, wherein we'll know that the
recipients can see and hear those examples. Sending such a mes-
sage to this list will probably result in a bunch of complaints
about not being able to read it.
2. They would also be willing to accept comparatively large message
sizes. People who pay by the downloaded Kbyte, or who have
28.8Kbps modems would perhaps not want to subscribe to this list.
In short, the value in a separate HTML list is one of "targeting" the
right audience - those of us who are capable of working in that medium.
That more than a technological-feasibility question.

> The idea of an audio list is good, but not realistic given today's
> bandwidth (for both server and subscriber).

I don't understand what you mean by bandwidth, assuming again that we
have a list specifically for people who can work in that environment.
Email of course, unlike web pages, takes space on a machine only for the
time required to send the message, so it's not likely to be a space concern
either.

So tell me more about this concern.

> A web or ftp site where users
> could post their files would be much better. People could post to this
> list to reference a given file on the audio site.

Are there any reasons why this would be better other than these bandwidth
concerns you mentioned? I can't think of any.

> What Gary proposed, as far as I can see, consists of two things...
>
> 1. Extend ASCI
> 2. Add audio
>
> HTML doesn't provide for either of these things.

Well, HTML provides a means of embedding attachments of various sorts,
including graphics and sound into a message, and tagging them to specific
places in the text. That's a big improvement over to just a nondescript
series of attachments. And it's not so much extended ASCII (it looks like
that's already available for most of us) as much as formatted text -
headers, indentation, italicization, lists, colors, etc.

But more importantly, what a separate HTML list would ensure two things:
1. People who subscribe to the HTML list will be those who can
view more than boring ol' ASCII. People who use text-only Email
would not subscribe to this list. Or perhaps more importantly,
we'll have a venue for sending messages about microtones that
use graphic and sound examples, wherein we'll know that the
recipients can see and hear those examples. Sending such a mes-
sage to this list will probably result in a bunch of complaints
about not being able to read it.
2. They would also be willing to accept comparatively large message
sizes. People who pay by the downloaded Kbyte, or who have
28.8Kbps modems would perhaps not want to subscribe to this list.
In short, the value in a separate HTML list is one of "targeting" the
right audience - those of us who are capable of working in that medium.
That more than a technological-feasibility question.

> The idea of an audio list is good, but not realistic given today's
> bandwidth (for both server and subscriber).

I don't understand what you mean by bandwidth, assuming again that we
have a list specifically for people who can work in that environment.
Email of course, unlike web pages, takes space on a machine only for the
time required to send the message, so it's not likely to be a space concern
either.

So tell me more about this concern.

> A web or ftp site where users
> could post their files would be much better. People could post to this
> list to reference a given file on the audio site.

Are there any reasons why this would be better other than these bandwidth
concerns you mentioned? I can't think of any.