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

RE: Future version of HTML!?

From: David Norris <kg9ae@geocities.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1999 20:37:16 -0500
To: "Keith Bowes" <keith_bowes@hotmail.com>
Cc: <www-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <NABBJAELJCIBPNFJODIGMEAOGBAA.kg9ae@geocities.com>
> I guess I didn't explain myself well.  I meant tags such as,
> but not limited to, BGSOUND should be added until a standard
> replacement is agreed on.  I didn't mean there was already

A replacement was agreed upon long ago for BGSOUND and many other
constructs.  These were voted on and accepted by the members of the
consortium.  I know of nothing in proprietary markup that has no
equivalent in the current recommendations.  (Even that awful blinking
thing is in CSS.)  Those recommendations simply have not completely
filtered into the mainstream.  It takes time to implement anything.
Nothing stops you from using BGSOUND or any other proprietary markup
right now.  It just simply goes against the current recommendation.

> The pont of "made-up" attributes is to have an attribute that
> does nothing, but is used by Javascript to perform some
> interactive or dynamic action.  Use your imagination.

The id and class attributes are designed to do just that and are
exposed for all elements.

> I uploaded my HTML 5 page this moring for you people to see.
> It isn't finished because I was waiting for some CONSTRUCTIVE

The whole premise behind your proposal is deconstructive to the long
term usefulness of HTML.  Short term needs are met with older and
proprietary 'versions' of HTML along with HTML/4.0 Transitional and
Frameset.  You are looking at HTML through a tunnel.  I do not believe
that you are considering the total impact of your proposal.  And, I
believe that you are making wide-spread assumptions about the use of
HTML.  I am getting those nasty "but, it'll be so cool" vibes again.
That bothers me.  Netscape did that when designing their browser, and,
it has become a recurring nightmare for nearly everyone since.
Indeed, it was cool at first.  But, it was not well thought out and
has caused so many problems across the board.

You have to remember that none of your proposals would be incorporated
any faster than the current recommendations.  Churning up a set of
tags doesn't instantly make them implemented across the board.  There
are so many conflicting things across proprietary HTML that it is
pointless to try and support them.

> I'm sorry.  I should have said "post-modern" HTML.  The HTML
> of the future, where designers, software vendors, and

I completely understand your proposal.  It is not post-modern nor
focused on the future.  It is just another short-term hack.  You
should do some serious research on the subject.  I've seen hundreds of
HTML version proposals come and go.  They all suffered the same
problem: they were all designed by small groups of people, often only
one person, who haven't a complete understanding of the real power of
HTML.

> Ah, the W3C-  a typical case of high authority on an ego trip.
>  Like HTML, the W3C has to change a bit too, or they'll always
> be greedy tyrants.

Do you have any idea who the W3C represents?  It is a consortium,
composed of the leaders in the industry.  It isn't some
self-proclaimed bunch of nuts.  You should have a look at the member
list sometime.  You might be surprised.

--
,David Norris
  World Wide Web - http://www.webaugur.com/dave
  Page via mail - 412039@pager.mirabilis.com
  ICQ Universal Internet Number - 412039
  E-Mail - dave@webaugur.com
Received on Saturday, 23 October 1999 21:43:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:15:40 GMT