I did it! I did it! (was: Please, let me poke my eyes out...)

[John Angelico]

On Sat, 16 Sep 2000 13:30:01 -0500 (CDT), John Thompson wrote:

>On Sat, 16 Sep 2000 08:12:56 -0400 (EDT), Gregory L. Marx wrote:
>
>>Bingo !!!
>>It bears repeating ...
>>
>>"It's all gaudy and big and stupid. Something with the same 
>>strategy but more class or better design might be fun."
>>
>>Seriously Trevor you've nailed it ...
>>IMO there's nothing wrong with eyecandy - providing it's done 
>>PROPERLY ... with style and class ... And that's where the rub lies ... 
>>What some people consider tasteful, others cringe at ... 
>
>yes, and that's why you should implement the eye-candy at the client, not
>in the message itself.  Perhaps have a library of effects for things like
>sending and receiveing mail and so on and all the sender has to do is
>select which effects to include with the message (maybe as just a few
>encoded bytes in an X-header line) and the client will read and interpret
>the sender's chosen effects in the manner the receiver wishes to enjoy
>them...  If I turn off the effects I have a bog-standard text-only mail
>client, but if I want to see every sentence in the message body that is
>terminated with an exclamation point in bright-yellow flashing bold script
>type on a purple background, well, hey, it's my client, right?
>

Hey, yeah!

Sounds like what a web browser program does when rendering the text tags surrounding the text content and called 
HTML...




Best regards
John Angelico
OS/2 SIG
talldad@melbpc.org.au or talldad@kepl.com.au
--------------------------------------------


PMTagline v1.50 - Copyright, 1996-1997, Stephen Berg and John Angelico
... If 99 million people say a dumb thing, it's still dumb.