W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > February 2003

Re: Visual Markup (should HTML die?)

From: Devon Y. <vehementpetal@hotmail.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 18:44:44 -0500
To: toddobryan@mac.com, www-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <F61m8f6F8sF6fJ9k35700041a9e@hotmail.com>

>Maybe I've missed something entirely, and maybe there are good reasons to 
>maintain HTML as the middle-man between content and visualization, but 
>maybe we're just stuck with this thing because we started with it so many 
>years ago.

My 2 cents probably has some flawed reasoning, but....

I think of HTML/XHTML as something for the common people, who don't have the 
time or the will to learn how to manage a mass of XML+CSS or XML+XSLT files 
even if the latter would be smarter in the long run. the visual elements are 
an option, and if the person decides to try learning more about markup & XML 
and stuff... they can easily move into a more advanced way of things, 
without being too daunting?

As for the VML idea, there would probably be some accessibility comcerns to 
it. The HTML and XHTML spec's have the visual options and are filled with 
accessibility bits that go beyond just the visual appearance of a page.

It really all comes down to people learning to code correctly anyway. I 
think a lot of bad habits were allowed & sustained during the late 90's, and 
now most people don't see any reason why they should change the way they 
code pages. I know a few people who code pages casually and they keep 
telling me "why fix what ain't broke?", everytime I try helping them with 
their code. Which brings up the point...if a VML spec was made & released 
and was perfect, would enough people bother with it? Who knows.


Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*  
Received on Saturday, 22 February 2003 18:45:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:06:02 UTC