Re: Web vs. paper

Peter Flynn (pflynn@imbolc.ucc.ie)
02 Oct 1997 01:26:08 +0100


Date: 02 Oct 1997 01:26:08 +0100
From: Peter Flynn <pflynn@imbolc.ucc.ie>
In-reply-to: <3435a84f.43255655@post.demon.co.uk> (message from Chris Croome on
To: chris@atomism.demon.co.uk
Cc: www-html@w3.org
Message-id: <199710020026.BAA29163@imbolc.ucc.ie>
Subject: Re: Web vs. paper

   I don't actually like the HTML for any the index.html pages
   (they all need to be redone) but I'm fairly happy with the
   layout of the articles for the October 1997 issue. I think
   I've more or less managed to use CSS in a way that works in

It looks pretty good to me, and I'm using NN3 on this machine, so
this is without CSS.

   both NN4 and MSIE4. There are back issues going back to
   March 1996 (it's a monthly journal) also on this site. If
   you want a real laugh have a look at some of the old issues
   - I really didn't know what i was doing! I'm planning to
   redo all the HTML for all the back issues so that the all
   use CSS and hopefully then there will be no need to redo
   pages ever again!

**if** the pages are of long-term historical or orgnaizational
importance then doing them in HTML with CSS is a virtual guarantee
that you _will_ need to redo them at some future time: HTML is not
suitable as an archive or repository format -- it's just not rich
enough. If they're regarded as important, use EAD or TEI and convert
to HTML for the moment while that remains the dominant DTD in use on
the Web. When it changes, you'll be well placed to take advantage of
it. If they're only of transient value (the archivists will probably
shoot me for saying it) then it doesn't really matter what you use.

///Peter