Re: HTML should not be a file format, but an output format

Abigail (
Sun, 13 Apr 1997 02:56:18 -0400 (EDT)

From: (Abigail)
Message-Id: <>
Subject: Re: HTML should not be a file format, but an output format
To: (nemo/Joel N. Weber II)
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 02:56:18 -0400 (EDT)
In-Reply-To: <> from "nemo/Joel N. Weber II" at Mar 22, 97 10:29:55 pm

You, nemo/Joel N. Weber II, wrote:
++    From:
++    Date: Sat, 22 Mar 1997 20:59:39 -0500 (EST)
++    Why not? The structure of a web site is arbitrarily divided up into 
++    multiple files. Each page and each picture must be in a separate file. 
++    Server-side image maps have to be in separate files. CGI scripts have to 
++    be in separate files. Is this the best way to edit a site?
++ I think I now see your point.

I don't. Why is everything a separate file? Think about it. It's
because how your server works - and that's not an HTML issue, and in
fact not an HTTP issue either. It's something some server authors
decided on. There's no reason to follow them; use whatever local
politics you want, it won't affect HTML, nor the HTTP protocol.

++ OTOH, I don't see a problem with spliting it across several files.  I
++ usually split computer programs I write across several files; why shouldn't
++ I split web pages similarily?

The question is, what unit of information do I send to the reader?  If
it's too small, he needs more connections. If it's too much, I'll send
a lot what will be unread, and the reader has to wait longer for the
document to arrive. So I find something in between. And putting each
unit send in a separate file seems a logic step for me. But again,
there's no HTML or HTTP rule that says you have to do it that way.

++    For example, in Globetrotter small caps is a true style. It 
++    doesn't exist in HTML. When Globetrotter publishes a document it writes 
++    the correct HTML to produce the desired result.

Odd, how can it when it doesn't exist?