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

RE: Future version of HTML!?

From: Keith Bowes <keith_bowes@hotmail.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 04:40:07 -0400
To: www-html@w3.org
Message-Id: <199910240439953.SM00431@rqzmlnif>
When I read about new standards, one question always comes to  
mind:
What's the point of new standards if no one uses them?
Hence, my proposal.


>I know of nothing in proprietary markup that has no
equivalent in the current recommendations.  (Even that awful  
blinking thing is in CSS.)

Here are some things I can't find a standard equivalent for.   
Please tell me if there is some equivalent:
*BACKGROUND SOUND for VISUAL BROWSERS (like can be  
accomplished with <BGSOUND> or <SOUND> in the <HEAD> or <EMBED  
Autostart="true" Hidden="true"> in the <BODY>).
*Scrolling and sliding text (like can be accomplished with the  
<MARQUEE> tag).
*A specification of how much space between adjacent frames  
(like can be accomplished with <FRAMESET Border=>).

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

What can class do besides apply stylesheet rules?  What can id  
do besides identify an element (so you can change the  
attibutes of only that element)?
I'm talking about true dynamicness and animation.  Perhaps  
you've noticed the rise in the use of Internet Explorer since  
"Dynamic HTML" was introduced in version 4.  The reason is  
undoubtably that people know what they want web pages to be.
It would be pretty hard for the W3C to control everybody,  
despite how much they want to.

>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 don't agree with you.  My proposal is actually based on  
ACTUAL use.
Go around the Internet.  How many people use XML?  Not very  
many (if any).  How many people use non-standard constructs to  
achieve what's impossible with standard?  Most.  You'll see  
that my proposal will probably be accepted better by the  
majority than the current standard.
You need to understand that web designers and surfers aren't  
drones, subjects, or slaves, but people that know what they  
want, and they won't listen to the W3C if the W3C can't  
deliver an equally or more appealing alternative.

>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.

I agree, Netscape has implemented their innovations poorly.   
But Microsoft has applied, fixed, and expanded these  
technologies so that they actally do look cool.  Personally, I  
love it when people write and say they love my site, and it's  
even more gratifying when someone asks me how I did it.

>You have to remember that none of your proposals would be  
incorporated any faster than the current recommendations.

Wrong.  They're already implemented in the majority of web  
sites.  Once again, what's the point of standards if no one  
uses them?  The opposite approach would be more logical-  make  
standards and implementations based on what's used.

>I completely understand your proposal.  It is not post-modern

Right, again.  It's "modern" and "post-modern".  Modern in  
this is already the version people use.  Post-modern in a way  
that it's more powerful and user-friendly than the current  
standard.

>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

So, we're revolutionaries.  Sometimes we lose and sometimes we  
win.  There's no reason to give up something we feel is right  
just because we might lose.

>, who haven't a complete understanding of the real power of
HTML.

I'm not going to fight with those of you on the dark side.   
With the force as our ally, we will win.  Besides, there's  
more of us than of you.

>Do you have any idea who the W3C represents?

Yes.  A group of corporate monopolies that don't care about  
what is actually used and wanted, are living in some sort of  
"W3C" utopia, and actually have the money to have the say-so  
in standards.
I defy the W3C.  I seriously doubt their opinion of me and  
other non-paying entities could get any lower.

>It isn't some self-proclaimed bunch of nuts.

I disagree, again.  Anything that thinks it'll be listened to  
just because it proclaims itself authoritative is a couple of  
sandwiches short of a picnic.
 
>You should have a look at the member list sometime.  You  
might be surprised.

I doubt it.  I neither fear nor respect the "leaders of  
industry".



Spock:  It has always been easier to destroy than to create.
-Star Trek II:  The Wrath of Khan (1982;  PG;  Action/Sci-fi)
Received on Sunday, 24 October 1999 04:37:39 GMT

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