W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-talk@w3.org > March to April 1998

RE: Client side : an economic perspective was: Re:...

From: Andy Coniglio <waconigl@mccallie.org>
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1998 08:35:23 -0400
To: "Andy Coniglio" <waconigl@mccallie.org>, "Stephanos Piperoglou" <sp249@cam.ac.uk>, "nir dagan" <dagan@upf.es>
Cc: <roconnor@uwaterloo.ca>, <www-html@w3.org>, <www-talk@w3.org>
Message-ID: <002501bd66d8$a0a6d8a0$1900970a@waconigl.mccallie.org>
Replacing HTML with XML, and HTTP with HTTP-NG and adding CSS2, DOM,
ECMAScript (Javascript), and Java gives pretty much what we have now;
Except for plugins.  If the web could get a standard set of video and audio
formats, most plugins would be unneeded.  In that case, why are we having
this discussion?

(I don't know much about XML or HTTP-NG.  Here, I'm assuming that they're
better that HTML and HTTP.  I'll try to find out as soon as I have the
time.)

---Sort of a restatement; I don't think it got across---
Client-side is too easy to use for Joe Average Programmer, who uploads his
page to GeoCities or his ISP, to lose.  It doesn't require any special
permissions or access privilages to the server.  He uploads it, and if the
client supports it, it runs his program.  Simple.  Easy.

The Conigs -- waconigl@mccallie.org

-----Original Message-----
I think that HTTP-NG + XML + CSS2 + DOM + ECMAScript is enough for any
reasonable Web application.  Perhaps Java would make a nice addition to the
above package, but there are both licensing and implementation problems with
Java. Perhaps if we get a more "final" version of Java and we know that any
future versions will be backward-compatible, and a VM that's fast and
open-source, we can talk...
Received on Monday, 13 April 1998 08:40:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 27 October 2010 18:14:23 GMT