W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > March 1999


From: Marius Loots <MLOOTS@medic.up.ac.za>
Date: Wed Mar 17 00:47:09 1999
To: www-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <2D0099C509A@medic.up.ac.za>

>     I can't comment on the social value of HTML and its ease of use;
> while I personally believe that this is a Good Thing (TM) I certainly can't
> establish it as a main priority for W3C! I have heard W3C people speak many
> times on this and they generally seem to share your opinion also. I can
> vouch for the fact that the HTML WG has certainly taken this into account in
> browser markup language and still maintain the simplicity of pervious
> versions of HTML. This tradeoff between power and simplicity is common to
> all computing systems. 
> people want, with the features they need to accomplish their goals, even if
> it adds complexity. Vendors will provide tools that will hide the

I might be wrong here, but the feeling I get is that as the whole 
standards thing progresses, some systems that are working very well for a 
large quantity of users, get moved, and in the process complicating the 
process of writing HTML.  I only use HTML 3.2 and get almost everything 
done that I want to have done.  I also only use a core of the whole and 
if you only want to deliver information, this suffice.  If I move to HTML 
4, the extra coding and complication is not worth what I want to provide. 
The above seems a lot of gibberish - what I am trying to say:
Shouldn't there be a core set of HTML that won't change and which can be 
used by the majority of people who only want a basic webpage without all 
the bells and whistles?  My suggestion would be a stripped down version 
of the present HTML 3.2.



mloots@medic.up.ac.za    +27-12-319-2144
Add some Chaos to your Life and put the World in Order
Received on Wednesday, 17 March 1999 00:47:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:05:50 UTC