Re: The Final Word On HTML (fwd)

Thu, 26 Sep 1996 19:29:16 -0500 (EST)

Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 19:29:16 -0500 (EST)
From: Foteos Macrides <MACRIDES@SCI.WFBR.EDU>
Subject: Re: The Final Word On HTML (fwd)
Message-id: <01I9Y28ZECG200861C@SCI.WFBR.EDU>

MegaZone <> wrote:
>Once upon a time Carl Morris shaped the electrons to say...
>><OBJECT DATA="hello.png" TYPE="image/png">
>>	<OBJECT DATA="hello.gif" TYPE="image/gif">
>>		<P>Damn I tried to get you a graphic but my if-then
>>		  construct says that if you don't support GIF or PNG
>>		  I'll send you this text instead.
>>		</P>
>>	</OBJECT>
>It is still completely up to the browser to handle this.  This is like the
>user input to a program, not the program itself.
>Or, using the DB metaphor again, each level is like a DB entry, the browser
>works along the entries until it finds one it can do.
>This is DATA not programatic content.
>HTML provides DATA that programs can process.

	In cases where inlining or inplugging directives include ALTernative
strings or markup for the unglued browser, I agree with your interpretation
and see no valid basis for complaints (beyond those about some browsers not
making it easy to become unglued when you're in a rush for the substance, or
providers not providing substantive alternatives).  But what about the
situation, as in Cougar, with "scriplets" as attribute values?

	In some cases, being glued is critical.  For example, accessing
a database of histological sections without graphic glue available is like
looking into a microscope without a lens.

	But scriplet attributes, e.g., for FORMs, are like TYPE=IMAGE
"submit buttons".  Am I missing something to think that's getting too
carried away with the glitz?


 Foteos Macrides            Worcester Foundation for Biomedical Research
 MACRIDES@SCI.WFBR.EDU         222 Maple Avenue, Shrewsbury, MA 01545