Re: plain text has its points

>>> <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org> 12/07 4:54 PM >>>
...
On the other hand, there is something to be said for the option of getting
large documents as a single html file vice a directory/folder of many
(linked) smaller html files.  Is this any kind of convention standard?
...
<<<

I've found that larger sites increasingly include a "printable" version of complex documents. This is often closer to plaintext than the Web version, the full-text of a multi-part document, or both. This is another "both/and" instead of an "either/or" situation. I want *both* the multi-part, segmented, layered and hyperlinked versoin, and the single, simple downloadable version.

When large, complex documents are available only as a single document they become unusuable for many purposes such as browsing, reference, and so on. Nesting and layering hide complexity until it's needed, and requested, by the reader. When I want to look up a specific datum residing within one huge document, I don't want the overhead of downloading, scrolling through and searching, and printing 100% of the information when I only need .1%.

On the other hand, I will often download and/or print documents that I intend to refer to later, or throw in my backpack and read on the subway. For this purpose - offline reference, browsing and reading - the single, simple page is often the better choice. I want the text, and only the text. And since I don't have the advantages of hyperlinks in print, I need all the text.

<author>Chris Kreussling</author> 
<disclaimer>The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York or the Federal Reserve System.</disclaimer>

Received on Monday, 7 December 1998 18:03:57 UTC