RE: A suggestion from the public

Clair -

Thank you for wording this in a way that makes much more sense than the way
I have been wording it! This is very much so something that would make
people happy!


-----Original Message-----
From: [] On
Behalf Of Clair Dunn
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 4:02 AM
To: Justin James
Cc: 'Toby Inkster'; 'Tab Atkins Jr.';
Subject: Re: A suggestion from the public

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doing is obsolete or quirky or non-standard.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
> 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
> 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: [] On
> Behalf Of Toby Inkster
> Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 2:23 AM
> To: Justin James
> Cc: 'Tab Atkins Jr.';
> 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:
Site Design for Artists:
Painting BLOG:
Cell: 802.309.3344

Received on Tuesday, 27 October 2009 20:47:55 UTC