W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > September 2005

Re: Browsers will never get it right [was Re:Blocked-base parsing?]

From: David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 21:19:19 +0100 (BST)
Message-Id: <200509152019.j8FKJJl00742@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
To: www-style@w3.org

Orion wrote:
> On 9/15/05, Emrah BASKAYA <emrahbaskaya@hesido.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 05:43:37 +0300, Orion Adrian <orion.adrian@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > 
> > > So I say that a new model is already upon us. I say that it's time we

That's basically just describing the normal lifecycle of standards.  Start
with bloat; new lean and mean targetted; industry committees; new bloat.

> > > took a look and see why so many people are starting to prefer RSS over
> > > standard HTML feeds and in that view I find we'll see that client side

I would say that RSS was closer to a re-invention of gopher than to 
a re-invention of HTML.  I would say the Wikipedia language was rather
closer to the original concept of HTML, although, potentially unfortunately,
it has escape mechanism for including raw HTML/CSS.

> > > CSS and Javascript isn't a good solution.

> possible (e.g. tracking what you've read or haven't, marking posts for
> keywords). Since the structure of an HTML document is unknown on any
> give site beyond the required html, head, title and body elements, you
> end up not being able to determine what is content and what isn't.

Making HTML simple was a deliberate part of the original design.  Whilst
now you seem to need to take expensive web design courses to use it, the
idea was that it was so simple that any secretary or librarian could
mark up text.

There are other SGML (and XML) applications, like DocBook and various
electronic data interchange formats that are aimed for more sophisticated
users or specific document structures.
Received on Thursday, 15 September 2005 20:41:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:40 GMT