1  2  |   Order by index

Jul 15, 2001, 2:01pm

"ananas" <vha at oct31.de> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:3B51A73A.270D872E at oct31.de...
> Your calculation is wrong in 2 points :
>
> - the relation might be correct for plain html, no
> "stationary" and no other picture elements.
> But once it's open for HTML this will come too.
> makes 25K for a 2K message, especially as this
> is transfered uuencoded, 1/3 more size.

Why don't you draw the line there then ? Why insist on "no html". Just ask for "no stationaries, no pictures" then.

> - just for me, I cannot read the news during the week,
> that makes 500 posts. Although I have a 64kbit line
> my connection to the AW NG server is really slow
> sometimes, even goes down to about acustic coupler
> speed. DSL would not help when that is the case.

Well, thats why "no pictures" make sense. But i am talking about simple html. Simple Text-Markup.

If people would use simple HTML, but on the other hand not complain about it, the number of posts would actually
radically decrease. Ever thought of that ?

> Next will be JS or VBScript? What about HTML compatibility
> issues? Does everyone check his mail with validator.w3c.org
> before he sends?

Fine. Lets throw our technology in the winds. Lets stick to 1980 technology. Lets all revert back to green-on-black text, shall we ?
Lets forget about 3d-internet that aw is and meet in a pub, ok ?

Why this categorical denial ? It is not based on any logic argument. Draw the lines somewhere else, where they belong.

Faber

Jul 15, 2001, 2:30pm

As soon as the world wide (!) lines will be able to
handle the traffic that it would produce AND the client
engines become reliable and unvulnerable I am willing
to restart this discussion.

But discussing with people who do not want to understand
makes not much sense.

Volker

--
"_
|
/\
\ /
__/ /_

Jul 15, 2001, 5:09pm

I have been a member in many chat services that know how to block certain
extensions (like those BMP's which are huge in file size). MSN (which I
stress is not one of them, I uninstalled their messenger) even allows a file
size limit as to an individual file that can be uploaded with an MSN
account. I am not saying MSN is the answer (nor do I like 90% of it), but
the point is in regards to the technology it is there, and you are able to
set ceiling limits.

Personally, I don't post things on message boards, newsgroups, or in
webpages that would be a significant overhaul on a connection. I would go
along probably with any file size limit you guys put out on the table. Just
consider a background, 1 pic, and html for just colors and hexidecimal code
into this limit. I wouldn't even use a background pic much, nor would I
want to post a pic all the time. There is a way to set limits, and I am all
for trying it.

I also suggest a specific html section, so those that totally don't want
html can have a html free newsgroup section while html users can use html.

I know you mentioned security holes, but it is possible to limit html
commands. All I am asking for is choice of color, I am not asking to allow
things to move and shake.

[View Quote]

Jul 16, 2001, 10:23am

You know there are some people who have a "bite limit" on their isps if they
go over this limit they have to pay extra per meg.
A 100k html post will add to that bitelimit fast especialy if other people
who reply to it leave the html in there 10 replys to a 100k post = 1 meg the
charge on 1 meg extra can in some case be quite high $1 to $2 US.
i know a few people who are in this very situation with their isps.
And before any one asls yes chat does count its per meg of tfered data be
that email files chat lines showing up on your aw browser or object dling.
[View Quote]

Jul 16, 2001, 12:09pm

If it costs so much to download an HTML message, then why do these people
even use Active Worlds? You have to download and cache an entire object
path and all the locations of each model for each world. That alone is
megbites upon megabytes of data, or for people who don't pay by the megabyte
but by time online downloading, a lot of downloading time. And even then,
you have to clear your cache once in a while making you download even more.

[View Quote]

Jul 16, 2001, 5:59pm

Then they need to find a better isp or not get on the internet at all if it's
that much of an exspense for them. No one forces anyone to come on the net and
no one forces anyone to open anything they don't want to open. You can clearly
see how much k a post is before you download it. I'm sorry if this sounds
insensitive, but there are things they can do if they don't want to be charged
more to download more. I don't think we need to be responsible for their
happiness or their ability or inability to access the internet without being
charged more. They just need to find a better isp. It's the same reason why I
don't use AOL. There are choices in this world. We want our choice to use html.
:)


[View Quote]

1  2  |   Order by index