- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@sidar.org>
- Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 00:23:23 +0200
- To: David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
- Cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
I don't think this suggests that HTML has failed. The first HTML authoring tool was a browser, with WYSIWYG authoring - it was helpful that HTML could be written by hand, but I don't think Tim really imagined that was how real people would do it. HTML was a sort of glue format for linking together resources - the very early Web had a wide variety of formats in common use, and people settled on HTML as a good thing for most documents they put there... which turned out mostly a good thing, I think. The average CMS is essentially an environment for authoring a particular kind of content, and the ones I have seen have the benefit of being able to handle non-HTML content reasonably well, and the drawback of not being very good for HTML unless you like writing code. This is not true of them all, of course - some of them do HTML very well. Just my 2cents worth Cheers Chaals On Thursday, Oct 9, 2003, at 22:48 Europe/Zurich, David Woolley wrote: > The difficulty I always have with the CMS concept is that it is really > an admission that HTML has failed to achieve one of its primary goals: > to be an authoring language that ordinary users can use directly. In > my understanding of the original web concept, a CMSed page would reduce > to a list of links to the actual detail pages written by the > information > providers. > > -- Charles McCathieNevile Fundación Sidar charles@sidar.org http://www.sidar.org
Received on Thursday, 9 October 2003 18:24:18 UTC