W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > October 2009

Re: A suggestion from the public

From: Clair Dunn <cadunn@vt2000.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 04:02:15 -0400
Message-ID: <4AE6A907.1080508@vt2000.com>
To: Justin James <j_james@mindspring.com>
CC: "'Toby Inkster'" <tai@g5n.co.uk>, "'Tab Atkins Jr.'" <jackalmage@gmail.com>, public-html@w3.org
I've not chimed in though I've been reading. This suggestion I 
understand, even though I'm a web designer.
Basically what's being asked to be considered is what amounts to 
different modes:

Easy Standard Advanced

Those three words are used to define levels of operation in many things, 
especially in software.

What these folks are asking for, it seems to me, is a legitimate and 
therefore accepted way of putting a document on the screen/web that can 
be learned and practiced without a learning curve which requires them to 
become a programmer.

An "easy" mode would give folks experienced in other fields who wish to 
share their special knowledge a simple platform by which to do so. It is 
a reasonable and valuable request.

Compare it to the ubiquitous use of word processors: one can produce 
plain documents or complex academic treatises with the same program and 
nowhere are the authors creating plain docs told that what they are 
doing is obsolete or quirky or non-standard.

It was after all the incredible ease and simplicity with which 
information could be disseminated that "made" the internet. It would be 
sad to denigrate the lowest common denominator, which, in this case, is 
a universal tool.

Clair Dunn

Justin James wrote:
> Toby -
> I really think that answer completely ignores the fundamental issue that
> these folks have. To make it clear, they are extremely angry that the
> *current* HTML efforts ignore this kind of work. They want a way to do
> things in a valid, conforming, and "approved" fashion in a current standard,
> that does not require all sorts of hoops to jump through.
> Like I said, I don't expect anything to come of this in this group. But I
> can tell you that many parts of the public "at large" is pretty unhappy with
> the direction HTML has been headed in, because they feel that it has lost
> its focus on creating documents in favor of becoming an application
> platform.
> J.Ja
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-html-request@w3.org [mailto:public-html-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Toby Inkster
> Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 2:23 AM
> To: Justin James
> Cc: 'Tab Atkins Jr.'; public-html@w3.org
> Subject: RE: A suggestion from the public
> On Mon, 2009-10-26 at 02:05 -0400, Justin James wrote:
>> The overall sentiment that I hear is that people want that style of
>> HTML to not be merely "defined" an "obsolete" or "non-conforming", but
>> to be considered "valid HTML".
> If it's currently valid HTML 3.2 or valid HTML 4.01, then it will
> continue to be valid HTML 3.2 or valid HTML 4.01.

Clair Dunn: http://www.clairdunn.com
Site Design for Artists: http://www.vt2000.com
BLOG: http://whiteriverjunction.blogspot.com
Painting BLOG: http://vermilionhue.blogspot.com
Cell: 802.309.3344
Received on Tuesday, 27 October 2009 08:03:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:01 UTC