Re: HTML4.0 draft: comments re: inclusion of frames (fwd)

Arnoud (galactus@htmlhelp.com)
Fri, 12 Sep 1997 18:53:14 +0200


From: galactus@htmlhelp.com (Arnoud "Galactus" Engelfriet)
To: www-html@w3.org
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 18:53:14 +0200
Message-ID: <6NXG04uYOd4e089yn@htmlhelp.com>
Subject: Re: HTML4.0 draft: comments re: inclusion of frames (fwd)

In article <l03110701b03df702c981@[192.168.1.117]>,
Jordan Reiter <jreiter@mail.slc.edu> wrote:
> At 11:59 AM -0500 1997-11-09, Arnoud "Galactus" Engelfriet wrote:
> >The problem is more that the *methods* used to create "good looking"
> >websites suck. This, combined with the apparent willingness of most
> >authors to use these crappy extensions to get something that looks
> >decent in an otherwise boring browser, is what gets out the "holier-than-
> >thou" attitude. There *are* good solutions to this, but they're not
> >implemented, and 'designers' who feel happy with using the half-baked
> >solutions are primarily responsible for keeping the situation as it
> >is now.
> 
> I would agree with the sentiment that crappy websites are being made every
> day.  

I think we do not agree as much as you think we do. :-) I'm not so
much complaining about the fact _that_ there are a lot of bad sites,
but that the site designers _willingly_ create crappy sites by using
these crazy extensions and other proprietary stuff.

> Except that it *is* possible to use methods that integrate the seemingly
> incompatible newer tags so that *any* browser can have a meaningful trip
> through a site.  By combinining alternative layouts, the use of effective
> ALT text, etc., it is possible to create a site that provides for a variety
> of platforms and browsers.

Oh yes, it's certainly possible to use these extensions without hurting
other people too much. No argument there. 

The situation is a bit more theoretical: WHY do people put up with
the crappy "solutions" and extensions implemented by Netscape? I have
yet to see an invention from them for which there is *no* better
alternative, in terms of functionality, backwards compatibility or
even just meaningfulness (is that a word?).

> Browsers, like television screens, are only as boring as the lack of
> information inside of them.  It is not the fault of the browsers that a
> user's experience is inadequate; 

It *is*. If your browser renders a standard document in black 12pt Times
on a grey background, and you don't like that, then why do you keep
using that browser? If you can't change the appearance of paragraphs,
or pick different fonts for headings, why keep using it?

> I think that it's about time that we had a standard that recognized and
> sought to guide in the use of these "newer" elements--and as
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------

Your post appears to have been cut off here?

-- 
E-mail: galactus@htmlhelp.com .................... PGP Key: 512/63B0E665
Maintainer of WDG's HTML reference: <http://www.htmlhelp.com/reference/>