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 08:05:54 -0400
To: www-html@w3.org
Message-Id: <199910240805187.SM00431@rqzmlnif>
>The OBJECT element ought to do this.

I'm sorry, but, as I've discussed with my friends (actually,  
one of them brought it up) <BGSOUND> is better than <OBJECT>  
because:
*<BGSOUND> can produce BACKGROUND sound.
*You can loop <BGSOUND> AND <EMBED>.
*Most browsers (including Amaya) think all OBJECTs are images.

>This approach allows for far greater flexibility without  
making HTML horribly complicated (and therefore more difficult  
to implement).

How is it possible to make HTML complicated?  I mean, it's  
like a no-brain-required language.

>Similar functionality can be achieved with the CSS box model.

Yes, but not quite the same functionality.  We can only hope  
CSS addresses these issues.

>If your HTML 5 is to include frames and CSS, you will have to  
write a new CSS as well.

I don't have to.  Like I've said before, I want an HTML  
standard that people will use.  If I think the W3C is wrong in  
CSS, I'll write a proposal.  Right now, HTML and DOM are the  
only standards that I think could use work.

>What can "made-up" attributes do? What can they do that can't  
be achieved with id/class?

Have you ever used Javascript constructively?  "Made-up"  
attributes have many uses, but very few are all-purpose.  It  
varies according to what you're trying to do.  

>DHTML is just scripting, and not standard across  
implementations. We have ECMAScript and the DOM, both strongly  
influenced by what people were already doing. The intention is  
that both authors and implementors should know what is  
required and what is provided. As you say, the W3C does not
have any direct control over them; another standard will not  
change this.

DHTML is not a standard, but DOM-1 is very close to DHTML;   
there are however, differences in functionality:
*DHTML paid attention to the rules of DOM-0 and made sense.
*DHTML made it easier to control the document.
*DHTML had several mechanisms to control user events.

If the W3C just added onto DHTML, instead of trying to replace  
it, I would probably be less hostile towards them.

>Not many people use XML. XML is still new. Nobody used CSS  
when it first appeared. Constructing XML applications is not a  
job for the amateur; as more are created more people will find  
uses for them.

Still not too many people use CSS (a:hover is the norm), but  
CSS can be directly integrated with what they already have.   
XML, on the other hand, requires a document to be re-written  
in a different language.  I doubt real people will do that.

>And how do other people implement them with any certainty of
compatibility? 

It's not hard to create inter-operability.  For example, my  
collapsible list works in Internet Explorer and Netscape, but  
when viewed in WebTV, it doesn't.  The reason is WebTV doesn't  
support the CSS "display" property.  However, it does support  
DHTML, so if I used "visibility" it would probably work, just  
wrong.

>Much as they might like to be, Microsoft are not the world's  
only providers of operating systems and web browsers.

They're close-  95% of people use Windows 95, 98, or NT and  
75% of the people use Internet Explorer 3 or higher.

>What about user agents? Are your proposals implemented in  
exactly the same way even in all of the major web browsers?

Practically. <BGSOUND>, for example, is implemented in  
Internet Explorer, Opera, WebTV, and Mosaic.

>Sometimes what is already used
is inadequate or problematic, and often not specified exactly.  
It is better for standards to precede implementations, because  
then the imlementors know what they should implement, and the  
authors know what should be implemented. If earlier versions  
of HTML had been quicker in appearing there would have been  
much more standardisation between implementations, rather than  
a confusing mess of proprietary extensions.

My mission is to propose tags until they have standards  
equivalents.
The problem is that often a standard alternative isn't as good  
as the proprietary one (eg, DOM-1 vs. DHTML).

>Who are "us"? Who, indeed, are "you"?

We are the Jedis on the good side, who have rebelled from the  
evil empire, forming the Rebel Alliance.  Now all that's left  
is extracting the death-star plans from the R2 unit.
But, seriously, I want to create a future HTML that people  
will be comfortable with.

>Indeed. The W3C does not think that.

Well that's because they're the crazy ones.

>So why should they respect you?

They shouldn't.  As in any civilization of free trade, they  
should keep an open mind and listen.

>Tim Bagot

You're really his evil double, aren't you?



Vera Webster:  You, activate circuits 29 through W7 and start  
full power coordinates on exterior defensive systems.
Lorelei Ambrosia:  In other words, you want me to push this  
red button.
-Superman III (1983; PG; Action/Adventure)
Received on Sunday, 24 October 1999 08:03:19 GMT

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