Re: Netscape & New HTML

Hello-

Before I begin, a brief introduction is in order. I come to computers and
HTML from a non-technical background (*definitively* non-tech: less than a
year ago I didn't know how to turn a PC on). I am an artist, who, like a
lot of other people, wandered on to the Web one day and got stuck. I have
authored several HTML documents since then, and will soon be making *many*
more: I have been asked to take over the WWW project for a local liberal
arts college, and I am now the acting managing editor for the online
services (WWW) of an important marketing company.
I have no experience with many of the paradigms discussed on this list, like
LaTex, Postscript, etc, and am only vaguely familiar with the relationship
between HTML and SGML. 
In short, I am one of the people who will, by voting with our feet, so to
speak, determine the eventual direction of HTML.  There are *lots* of
people like me - non 'experts', but people who are concerned with the long
term usability of the HTML they write.
I'm in a quandary now. I looked into Netscape immediately on release, and saw
the increased possibilities of Netscape HTML right away, but I was troubled
by seemed to me to be the first step towards the balkanization of WWW. I
have followed this list for some months, and while I concede that it hasn't
been exactly *exciting*, I have learned a lot from your discussions. I think
I understand the importance of semantic markup, and there seems to be a
consensus on this list that that is the best way to approach HTML, but
really, hasn't the pre-emptive strike by Netscape effectively ended this
argument?  They seem already to have captured the browser 'market', as I
suspected they would when I first saw Netscape Mosaic, and it seems to me
that the dominant browser can, more or less, set their own standards.
I have two style guides that need to be written soon, and dozens of pages
that I have to start mapping out within weeks, and I am interested in the
opinions of those on this list who know a lot more than I do (which is
most of you). What would you do? Would you include the Netscape additions
as acceptable HTML in a style guide - would you write your own pages to
those specs?

Brian wrote:
>Does anyone have a URL to a really good resource on the net that explains    
no>in non technical terms why semantic markup is a good thing? The best I
>can say right now is that it expresses ideas at a much higher level than
>page layout languages do.  And because it's at that higher level, you can
>do a lot more with it, it's more reusable, it's more portable, it can be 
>transmogrified into something completely different yet still convey its
>ideas.  In an information space where the amount of information present is
>just overwhelming, as the internet has become (and it will only get
>worse), being able to deal with and navigate among documents semantically
>is essential
>
>I dunno, maybe I'm alone in this, in which case I'll shut up and let HTML
>become whatever people want it to become, and consider it opportunity
>lost.                                                                        
>                                                                             
>   >   Brian

It seems to me that trying to extend this discussion to a forum that would reachmore of the people who are writing most of the HTML would be a good idea, and
soon. I have no way to back this up, but I think the bulk of the HTML code
out there is being written by people who don't even know this list exists.

Thanks,

Nathan Wagoner

Received on Monday, 24 October 1994 13:11:59 UTC