Re: Spyglass HTML Validator 1.0 Availability

F. E. Potts (fepotts@fepco.com)
Thu, 17 Oct 1996 09:32:58 -0600


Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 09:32:58 -0600
From: fepotts@fepco.com (F. E. Potts)
Message-Id: <96Oct17.093506mdt.18433@gw2.fepco.com>
To: murray@spyglass.com
Subject: Re: Spyglass HTML Validator 1.0 Availability
Cc: www-html@w3.org

On Thu, 17 Oct 1996 08:36:32 -0600, Murray Altheim wrote:

> <GOAD>
>    All the talk of standards they promulgate is nonsense so long
>    as they can't or won't publish those standards. They are not a
>    standards company so long as they don't publish the proprietary
>    specifications that their products claim to follow. I personally
>    don't believe they use any internal DTD, and have wondered if
>    anyone in the company is capable of writing one.
> </GOAD>  <!-- God, I hope that goads _someone_ there to reply... :-)
> -->
>
> I'm sure I'll have to repeat this (I already have privately several
> times), so I'll shout it:
>
>     "WE'D BE ABSOLUTELY HAPPY TO SUPPORT A NETSCAPE DTD IF NETSCAPE
>      WOULD BE SO GOOD AS TO RELEASE ONE."
>

I for one am getting thoroughly sick of this bizarre "war" between
Netscape and Microsoft for "control" of the web.  Like the "War on
Drugs," it is a war with no winners, only losers, and the losers are
the innocent bystanders who just want to get their work done in peace.

What I would like to see is the web move on to SGML, and I'm waiting
for SoftQuad to finish porting their SGML UA to Unix so I can start
experimenting.  SGML perhaps is the only rational solution possible for
those who wish to use the web for serious scientific and literary
communication, and intend to produce work with long-term staying
power.

Please pardon the rant; it is just that watching the web being turned
into a poor-quality clone of car-radio and the most repulsive elements
of TV is highly depressing.  It is hard to watch the devolution of what
promised to be the greatest advance in publishing since Johannes
Gutenberg's Bible in 1440 go sour so rapidly.  Elitist?  Sure, but does
<em>everything</em> have to be reduced to the lowest common
denominator?

-fep

--
fepotts@fepco.com
http://www.fepco.com/