Re: <math>, <fig>, ... (fwd)

MegaZone (megazone@livingston.com)
Fri, 10 May 1996 03:26:33 -0700 (PDT)


Message-Id: <199605101026.DAA04668@server.livingston.com>
Subject: Re: <math>, <fig>, ... (fwd)
To: www-html@w3.org
Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 03:26:33 -0700 (PDT)
From: MegaZone <megazone@livingston.com>

Once upon a time Paul Prescod shaped the electrons to say...
>A new HTML 3.0 could be HTML 2.0 + W3C good stuff (math,style,object) + the
>well designed features from the old HTML 3.0 spec.

What was well designed in the old HTML 3.0 spec that is not in 3.2 nor is
being worked on by the W3C?  Seriously, I'd lik to know what you are
thinking of with this.

>In other words, it would be HTML 3.2 + W3C good stuff - Netscape crap.

I just don't see the point in this, the 'Netscape crap' is really minor.
It seems like an idealist argument or a pathological hatred of anything to
do with NS instead of a rational process.  It doesn't do you any harm to
have it in there - no one is going to make you use it.

They said they will be deprecating <CENTER> in favor of align, and <FONT>
is minor (and actually, I was in favor of that - some people want some
minor control and don't need the complexity of Style Sheets.  Such as
the folks in Marketing.  I'd rather not have to teach them style sheets
since they are happily amused with messing with their font color).

Setting the background and colors was already discussed as an addition
because it is nigh-universally popular.  I think color improved the
appearance of the web 100% - I was damned sick of black on grey defaults
and that's it.  Sure some people abused it, someone will abuse anything.

>And once again, before I get accused of being an idealist, I don't expect
>that "HTML 3.0" would be "embraced by the masses", but it would be a good,
>solid, well-thought out standard for those of us who want that. HTML 3.2

I guess I fail to see where there is any major flaw in 3.2.  I'd rather
see the people working on the enhancements start from 3.2 and build on it.
You lose nothing, and it at least has a chance of being accepted.

And your not correct - I *do* care quite a bit about standards and quality,
I just don't believe 3.2 lacks quality.  It doesn't stun me with it's
brilliance, but I'm not disgusted by it either.  I feel it is a good point
to work from, and I will continue to push 3.2 on everyone I help with the
web until I brainwash the idea of '3.0' out of their heads.  And that's
a number of people daily.  I was sick of people whining about 3.0 this
and 3.0 that when there was not such thing once the spec expired, now I
at least have something concrete.  And the public thinks like "bigger 
number, must be newer, must be better, let's go!".

-MZ
--
Although I work for Livingston Enterprises Technical Support, I alone am
responsible for everything contained herein.  So don't waste my managers'
time bitching to them if you don't like something I've said.  Flame me.
Phone: 800-458-9966  support@livingston.com  <http://www.livingston.com/> 
FAX: 510-426-8951    6920 Koll Center Parkway #220, Pleasanton, CA 94566