Re: Structure v. pages (was Re: HTML+)

Richard Koman (rkoman@ora.com)
Wed, 14 Sep 1994 13:24:05 -0700


Date: Wed, 14 Sep 1994 13:24:05 -0700
Message-Id: <199409142024.NAA23263@rock>
To: Multiple recipients of list <www-html@www0.cern.ch>
From: rkoman@ora.com (Richard Koman)
Subject: Re: Structure v. pages (was Re: HTML+)

>On the Internet today, "push" is generally considered a bad thing.  At some
>level, net users usually don't like to get stuff that they didn't ask for,
>explicitly or implicitly.  I think that's why structured text has been the
>focus so far.  But as advertisers start to carry some of the costs,
>publishers are going to want their usual level of control over the
>appearance, and hence (in theory) the impressions that they make.
>
>Nick

It's not just commercial concerns. Designers, for instance, are frustrated
by the idea that they can't present information and have it people see it
the way they meant it to be seen. They can't spec a typeface, can't knock
type out of an image, can't spec a color, can't set type on an angle, can't
run type around an image, can't put images underneath type, etc. You can do
all these things on a computer, so why shouldn't you be able to let people
see the structured (designed) document on the Net? Not being able to do so
leads people to printing documents and mailing them to people (the ultimate
push).

Richard
----------------------------------
Richard Koman
rkoman@ora.com
O'Reilly & Associates
103A Morris St.
Sebastopol, CA 95472
707-829-0515