W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > December 2000

Re: Abandon all hope, ye who enter here! (was: RE: margin elements)

From: Marcelo Perrone <mclist@terra.com.br>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 01:47:44 -0000
Message-ID: <00ff01c0656f$dad6f670$5e71d5c8@terra.com.br>
To: "'www-html'" <www-html@w3.org>
about the articles
> #1 - http://hotwired.lycos.com/webmonkey/99/52/index2a.html?tw=authoring
> #2 - http://hotwired.lycos.com/webmonkey/98/38/index1a.html?tw=commentary

I read the first. I think it goes pretty well on the first pages. Presents
some important ideas when it says

"The very foundation of the Web, the fundamentals of HTML, dictate that when
a browser sees something it doesn't quite understand, it's free to interpret
that code however it pleases. This strategy is great for developing a
universal format for information on a global network..."

but screws up when says

"but we need something more robust for fine-tuned design."

I think the point about HTML is exactly that it should give parsers the
ability to interpret that code however it pleases.  We dont NEED to find
s/thg for more robust fine-tuned design cause we've got a lot of stuff for
that (CSS, SVG, SWF, <FONT> TAGS).
Moreover gives me the creeps people trying to make a site look the same
everywhere they see it as if it was some printed paper. C'mon, what about
those braile stuff, text only, bla bla bla wai thing?
I liked that "Is there enough water?" site exactly because if i have a
parser that puts some margin, applies any color scheme, fontset or whatever
the page WILL change cause it was built to have the ability to do that.

The web I work with is made by "comercial companies" that pay us to do that.
Not by developers. Experimental sites are great, but they don't pay the
bill.

So what to do with it? I work in the brazilian office of a big international
web consulting company. ALL of our clients does NOT understand acessibility
initiatives and our biggest client wants ALL of its sites content in images,
and all the content inside a div that only appears after all the page is
loaded.

And there is nothing to do about it but cry. Alone. Inside the company
bathroom ; ).

"In fact, the next version of HTML (dubbed xHTML) is all about applying the
rigor of XML syntax and validity to the ubiquity of the markup language. "

I don't see xHTML as being ALL about applying rigor to the sintax but
whatever.

//

> 3. Use any kind of DHTML effect
Don't agree, I have adapted some scripts on our sites after netscape 6
launched and all of them seem very ok. Mostly because i tried to separate
access to DOM from the actual script.

> 4. Try to get content to look half decent
Now you're joking.

> 5. Try to get content to download quickly
This is some serious issue. Sorry if I'm (how can I say that in english,
hummm...) /making it seem that i dont think you are as tough as you are/ but
are you sure it's not some server configuration, i dont know...

> 6. Try and leave anything for the browser to decide."
Such as?

> 5. Netscape is slow and always has been. Stick to Opera if you want fast,
I
> guess. This one bugs me, too. For example, a page that took 3 seconds for
IE
> over a 28.8 modem took 18 seconds for Netscape 6. That's 600% slower. What
> gives, Mozilla?

Charles, I messed a little with some M's before netscape actually launched
and I got the exact oposite impressiom from yours. Remember when they came
with some example pages to show its performance? I was impressed with the
ability to parse nested tables! I thougth the final version had the same
performance.

Have you tried it locally to see if this performance difference is due to
some download issue rather than parsing? Could you send me the HTML code
that makes this difference?


> Charles F. Munat,
> Seattle, Washington


Sorry if I seem agressive at some point. It's my English knowledge, not what
I meant to be.
Received on Thursday, 14 December 2000 22:34:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:15:44 GMT