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

RE: Future version of HTML!?

From: David Norris <kg9ae@geocities.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 09:02:33 -0500
To: "Keith Bowes" <keith_bowes@hotmail.com>
Cc: <www-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <NABBJAELJCIBPNFJODIGOEBGGBAA.kg9ae@geocities.com>
Now some of this is going way off topic.  And, beyond this message, I
will not pollute the list with further replies to nonsense.
Especially defending against attacks based on assumptions,
misinformation, and blatant ignorance.

> *BACKGROUND SOUND for VISUAL BROWSERS...
> <BGSOUND>...<SOUND><HEAD> or

Aural style sheets or an object depending on the intended use.
Combining that with DOM might be appropriate in some cases.

> <EMBED Autostart="true" Hidden="true">

Again, object would be appropriate.  DOM and scripting might be
useful.

> <MARQUEE>

DOM and ECMAScript.  And/or, object referencing a tiny Java, or
similar, program.

> <FRAMESET Border=>

The current CSS recommendation covers the replacement of frames.

> I'm sorry, but, as I've discussed with my friends...

Are your friends as well informed?

> *<BGSOUND> can produce BACKGROUND sound.
> *You can loop <BGSOUND> AND <EMBED>.

These can be done with an OBJECT, many with CSS depending on the
intention.

> *Most browsers (including Amaya) think all Objects are images.

That is a flaw with the software.  That is not the fault of any
recommendations.  Faulty software should be fixed.  An oversight on
the part of a software developer has nothing to do with the integrity
of the specifications they attempt to support.

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

No, you're wrong.  HTML is far more useful when you apply intelligence
to its use.  Anyone can make a jumble of nonsense that looks, and even
validates, as HTML.  A document using elements that share the names of
HTML elements doesn't make it an HTML document by any stretch of the
imagination.

> What can class do...

Anything that DOM scripting can do.  Lookup the definition of class in
the glossary, it should be obvious.

> What can id do...

Anything that DOM scripting can do.  Again, look for ID in the
glossary, again it should be obvious.

> 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

I hate to tarnish your negative image of the W3C.  However, the
'Dynamic HTML' used in Internet Explorer is based completely on W3C
recommendations.  And, oddly enough, Microsoft (a W3C member)
representatives are listed as both editor's and contributors to many
of the specs which comprise the 'Dynamic HTML' features in IE.

> It would be pretty hard for the W3C to control everybody,
> despite how much they want to.

First, you must define 'everybody'.  Look at the W3C member list, that
list likely covers your definition of 'everybody' ten times over.  I
would argue that, inversely, your 'everybody' controls the W3C.

> I don't agree with you.  My proposal is actually based on
> ACTUAL use.  Go around the Internet.

Actual use is based on past proposals from a plethora of randomly
informed sources.  My point is that they already exist.  Use the
proprietary specifications if you want.  No one says you can't.  They
are often well documented.

> How many people use XML?  Not very many (if any).

You're comparing lumber to houses.  XML can't replace HTML, and, HTML
can't replace XML.  XML might be able to redefine HTML.  However, HTML
is still HTML regardless of the words used to define it.  In many
cases, it would clearly be insane to rewrite an HTML document in some
non-HTML application of XML.  You don't seem to understand XML.

> Still not too many people use CSS (a:hover is the norm), but
> CSS can be directly integrated with what they already have.

Really?  Following your logic that it is already widely implemented in
browsers.  Try combining tag soup with CSS in Netscape, define
something both in CSS and tag soup.  The browser explodes and often
takes the whole system with it.

> How many people use non-standard constructs to achieve
> what's impossible with standard?  Most.

Absolutely correct.  And, no one says that they can't use non-standard
constructs.

> You'll see that my proposal will probably

This is mere assumption.

> be accepted better by the majority than the current standard.

I can equally presume that the W3C recommendations would be better
accepted because they were written by the people whom are implementing
them.

> 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 understand this very well.  The W3C has consistently delivered more
appealing alternatives.  You just seem to be intent on ignoring the
fact that current standards and recommendations are never fully
implemented until years after their introduction.

Many of the currently implemented proprietary extensions were
developed years ago.

> 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.

Compliments are always nice.  Criticisms are equally constructive.

> The opposite approach would be more logical-  make
> standards and implementations based on what's used.

And, why is this logical?  What you see is all that will ever be.

> 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.

It is far from user-friendly or more powerful.

> So, we're revolutionaries.

Revolutionaries often succeed because they are well informed
individuals.  Your proposal is devolutionary and fosters status quo.

> 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.

Dark side?

>> 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.

A bunch of corporate monopolies?  That has to be the most ignorant
statement I've ever seen.

> I defy the W3C.  I seriously doubt their opinion of me and
> other non-paying entities could get any lower.

Non-paying?  I have to wonder what you mean by non-paying.  There is a
price for everything.

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

Well, that is your fault.

> >So why should they respect you?
> They shouldn't.  As in any civilization of free trade, they
> should keep an open mind and listen.

If you're opinions weren't respected, you wouldn't be able to post to
this list.  But, you must respect the fact that nothing precludes you,
and your Jedi friends, from being wrong.

> Spock:  It has always been easier to destroy than to create.
> -Star Trek II:  The Wrath of Khan (1982;  PG;  Action/Sci-fi)

Indeed.

--
,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 Sunday, 24 October 1999 10:05:32 GMT

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