Re: A Modest Proposal

> or more flexibly by simply having the browser assign a set of applications
> to a set of filename extensions, similar to the MS Windows File Manager.

The point is that none of the other formats come close to being appropriate
for use on the Web. The main points of HTML are

	1. Hypertext
		You can't do hypertext in postscript

	2. Small data sizes (except for images which you can choose not to load)
		There is no concept of "load the text of the postscript but
		not the images". 

	3. Markup
		There is no information describing the meaning of any
		text in postscript. Using markup information can present in
		special ways for different people including being spoken
		for blind people using different volumes and tones depending
		on the "font".

	4. Widespread availability
		Its easy to get the basic WWW browser and you don't need to
		have 16M of memory to run it. Sure maybe I can't watch the
		movies or play the sounds without extra software but so far
		these things haven't even been really integrated into anything
		because the bandwidth isn't there (click here to hear Socks
		meow)

I'm not for putting everything including the kitchen sink into HTML but I
think it is reasonable to plug a few of the big holes. The bottom line is
that the WWW is not an invention that is good because some engineers found the
most logical process for describing a worldwide network of information. It
is simply something that worked that everyone understands and everyone has
access to. I'd rather not screw this up by encouraging that people start
authoring using proprietary formats like postscript or MS Word.

paul r.

Received on Wednesday, 25 January 1995 10:24:39 UTC