Re: Netscape & New HTML

On Fri, 21 Oct 1994 wrote:

>    > I've stated this myself a couple of times before.  Nothing prevents
>    > developers of WWW clients to support other document languages
>    > explicitly like PostScript, PDF, TeX, etc.
>    Why not just add the functionality on to HTML.  For an HTML coder, it is 
>    much easier to learn a few more commands than to learn a whole new 
>    language (Besides, the mere thought of learning PostScript or TeX without 
>    having to is enough to make me have nightmares).
> And while we're at it, it's long disturbed me that, in addition to
> learning HTML, I had to learn to drive to get to work in the morning.
> Why not just add the functionality on to HTML?  It's much easier to
> learn a few more commands like <p command=turn left> than to learn how
> to drive.

Yeah, but that'd mean you'd have to port your browser to yet another 
platform.  Besides, I already know how to drive (not that my passengers 
would agree with me :-).

But seriously, HTML provides a low-bandwidth way to specify the 
aproximate positions and layout of text/pictures.  Using PostScript or 
TeX or any other typesetting language increases the bandwidth by insane 
amounts.  Better to add options on to the existing low-bandwidth 
solutions than to go for something that will clog the 'Net and hog the 

I agree that there may be some things that are unnecessary (hell and 
damnation upon <BLINK>) but needed/useful markups such as <center> and 
<font> will be used.  If they add something that people want and will 
use, what's the problem?

* Dylan Northrup <> * PGP and Geek Code available *
***********************************************   via WWW and upon request  *
* Will code HTML for food *  KIBO #7  * <> * 
Random Babylon 5 Quote:
"The sky was full of stars and every star an exploding ship -- one of ours."
  -- Sinclair (about the Line), "The Gathering"

Received on Friday, 21 October 1994 17:54:28 UTC