W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-talk@w3.org > January to February 2001

Re: WWW: Interoperability Crisis?

From: Wilbur Streett <WStreett@mail.Monmouth.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 13:47:18 -0500
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20010122134718.01fbbbf0@mail.monmouth.com>
To: "John Hardy" <jh@lagado.com>, <www-talk@w3.org>
At 04:59 PM 1/22/01 +1100, John Hardy wrote:
>: I'm working on doing that right now.  I'm not going to engage in XML or
>the
>: latest nonsense to do it.  I'll translate HTML on the fly into scripts for
>: the technology that I've created.  I'll offer translation services into
>: better implementations for those sites that people want to see that I
>think
>: are worth it, and (gasp), I'll even charge for it on occasion.
>
>Well good for you, sounds great! Unfortunately, I couldn't download your
>plugin so i didn't see much of your site.

You must be the Mac guy that I saw on the logs..  sorry, it's less than 1/2
of one percent of the marketplace.

>Still, i'm sure glad we all have HTML (flaws and impurities) to fall back on
>rather than some quirky proprietory file format. It's why the web succeeded
>and why Microsoft MSN switched to HTML from its own godforsaken RTF based
>stuff.

But you did see the noplugin page and get an idea of what I'm doing.  Now
bread down and spend the few hundred dollars to have a PC available.

>The point is this stuff is simple. Its high level, not some information free
>low level display language. It could be made much better. More people now
>understand the benefits of things like stylesheets and the separation of
>form and content.

I refuse to engage in stylesheets.  They do not enhance my creation of a
page when I am creating it.  

>Its simple, minimally constraining technologies that succeed in the long
>run. That's because they loosely couple the ends of the communication
>channel. They don't break as easily as technology built for the short term.

The first usable technology is what suceeds in the long run.  The rest is a
bunch of updates that people think provide an advantage which end up not
being used by people.

>Finally, instead seeing it as a "burden" to support web accessibilty,
>properly designed, this stuff comes for free.

If The original person claiming that he had a solution to accesability for
the blind has a solution that comes from free with no burden, then indeed I
wouldn't mind.  But given the reality of the visual nature of the web, and
text, and everything else, it's not going to be a burdensome issue to
design web pages for people who are sightless.

Wilbur


     --------------------------------------------
        Putting A Human Face On Technology ;-)
     --------------------------------------------
        Literally!  http://www.TheFaceOf.com
Received on Monday, 22 January 2001 02:11:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 27 October 2010 18:14:25 GMT