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

Stephanos Piperoglou (
Sun, 23 Mar 1997 21:23:39 +0200 (EET)

Date: Sun, 23 Mar 1997 21:23:39 +0200 (EET)
From: Stephanos Piperoglou <>
To: "nemo/Joel N. Weber II" <>
Subject: Re: HTML should not be a file format, but an output format
In-Reply-To: <>
Message-ID: <>

On Sat, 22 Mar 1997, nemo/Joel N. Weber II wrote:

> I also get frustrated by people who don't understand the underlying
> technology and are confused when any lossage happens.  HTML is not
> that hard.  Let people learn it.  Then we don't have problems with
> slightly broken tools.  (Admittedly the tools should be fixed.
> But how do you let people intellegenetly choose between relative
> and absolute links without explaining them?)

HTML was never meant to be written by the end user. Programmers should know
it, just like programmers at Microsoft know MS Word format. HTML was used to
define links from point A to point B. That was it. That was the goal, and
it's been neglected.

My ideal world? In a pinch, standardization of a bytecode-producing language
(like Java) so everyone could pick their own hardware and OS and run all
applications. Standardization of ways to place head and tail hyperlink
anchors in *every* document format. Standardization of resource locators for
every type of resource so these hyperlinks make sense. Now you would have
ANY computer you wanted, with ANY operating system, based on your own
preference and not on what most people use and how you can exchange
information with your peers. And any document viewer, from video to text to
audio, would have simple point-and-click links to anything else. Your
editors would create these and your viewers would ask the OS to produce the
resource (through local or networked channels) so you could view it.

That's called heaven.

Stephanos "Pippis" Piperoglou -
I've never finished anything I began, but this time I'm