Re: Netscape & New HTML

lamport@src.dec.com
Fri, 21 Oct 94 07:38:45 -0700


Message-Id: <9410211438.AA07876@lilac.pa.dec.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list <www-html@www0.cern.ch>
Subject: Re: Netscape & New HTML 
In-Reply-To: Message of Fri, 21 Oct 1994 01:49:37 +0100
    <Pine.3.87.9410201944.D2717-0100000@chuma>
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 94 07:38:45 -0700
From: lamport@src.dec.com


   > >       <h1 align=center>This is a H1 heading</h1>
   > > 
   > > I presume one would also write
   > > 
   > >       <p font=10pt Helvetica with 2 pt leading>Some text</p>
   > 
   > No, since it is illegal SGML :-)
   
   And also takes the ability of the client user to select how they want the 
   documents to be presented (i.e. large fonts, all courier (stupid I'll 
   grant, but who knows), etc.)

I suppose that Swift's "Modest Proposal" started a discussion of
proper cooking techniques.

   > I've stated this myself a couple of times before.  Nothing prevents
   > developers of WWW clients to support other document languages
   > explicitly like PostScript, PDF, TeX, etc.
   
   Why not just add the functionality on to HTML.  For an HTML coder, it is 
   much easier to learn a few more commands than to learn a whole new 
   language (Besides, the mere thought of learning PostScript or TeX without 
   having to is enough to make me have nightmares).

And while we're at it, it's long disturbed me that, in addition to
learning HTML, I had to learn to drive to get to work in the morning.
Why not just add the functionality on to HTML?  It's much easier to
learn a few more commands like <p command=turn left> than to learn how
to drive.

DISCLAIMER: The comment above was meant to be ironical.  I am not
proposing that commands be added to HTML to allow it to drive me to
work in the morning.  Please do not start a discussion of just which
driving commands should and should not be added to HTML.

Leslie Lamport