Re: microsoftisms after netscapeisms ?

lilley (lilley@afs.mcc.ac.uk)
Mon, 15 Jan 1996 12:13:05 +0000 (GMT)


From: lilley <lilley@afs.mcc.ac.uk>
Message-Id: <2278.9601151213@afs.mcc.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: microsoftisms after netscapeisms ?
To: mmagallo@efis.ucr.ac.cr (Marcelo Magallon)
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 1996 12:13:05 +0000 (GMT)
Cc: www-html@w3.org
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.91.960113101136.14800B-100000@simula.efis.ucr.ac.cr> from "Marcelo Magallon" at Jan 13, 96 10:19:50 am

Marcelo Magallon writes:
> On Fri, 12 Jan 1996, Christophe JOUAN wrote:
> 
> > Are they microsoftisms (just like netscape does)? 
> yes, they are.
> 
> > Are they part of suggestions that microsoft wants to propose to w3c?
> 
> I don't think so... of course, I don't know what goes on inside MS or 
> W3C, but I doubt MS wants to make ANY suggestions. They just go and 
> implement whatever they think is "needed", just as NS did.

Heh. Before we all go and slit our collective wrists, however, I would 
refer you to a recent W3C draft Technical Report on a new HTML element 
which will replace app (Sun) applet (Sun) embed (Netscape) marquee 
(Microsoft) bgsound (Microsoft) etc etc ..

And before you all go (as I did) "pah, they will never implement that" look
at the authors of the spec ... and reconsider. Times they are a changin'

  http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/TR/WD-insert.html


> Poor HTML developers, they'll have to. I *think* January's issue of 
> Netguide addresses some of this... we need some sort of standard, because 
> I cann't tell visitors of our server, "ok, this page does fine with NS, 
> this one with IE, this one ...".

Right. Some sort of a standard is precisely what we need. Furthermore, one 
which is worked out in collaboration with the major browser vendors all 
sitting round a table and exploring what needs to be done.

> Neither can I write a page for every 
> single browser in existance, 

True. Some folks try, but they are then tied up in tracking all the new 
releases on every possible platform ...

> and obviously, going for the lowest common 
> denominator (aka, HTML 1.0, I think), is NOT a solution. 

The lowest common denominator is now HTML 2.0, which defines in 
toe-curling detail the consensus of the state of HTML in around August 94.
If you want to know what is the lowest common denominator, look there.

> Maybe big 
> companies like Time Warner can afford doing that, but big-company-owned 
> is not what I think of the Internet nor the WWW.

Indeed. Recall the Web was originally about collaborative and ubiqitous 
publishing.

-- 
Chris Lilley, Technical Author and JISC representative to W3C 
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
|  Manchester and North Training & Education Centre   ( MAN T&EC )  |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Computer Graphics Unit,             Email: Chris.Lilley@mcc.ac.uk |
| Manchester Computing Centre,        Voice: +44 161 275 6045       |
| Oxford Road, Manchester, UK.          Fax: +44 161 275 6040       |
| M13 9PL                            BioMOO: ChrisL                 |
| Timezone: UTC        URI: http://info.mcc.ac.uk/CGU/staff/lilley/ | 
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+