- From: kitblake <kitblake@gig.nl>
- Date: Wed, 19 Jul 1995 12:18:42 +0100
- To: www-html@www10.w3.org
The tail: > >No, we'll just leave you to your <CENTER><BLINK>KooL!</BLINK><CENTER> >Netscape "Enhanced" world, and get on with the serious business of >constructing useful, powerful and accessible open standards for >everyone, that make the Netscape Extensions look like the crude >little hacks they are. > As I read this ongoing discussion I get a strong sense of deja vu. There is an Academy, say the Beaux-Arts in France, telling Claude Monet that Impressionism is not painting. We all know who Monet is.... The metaphor is cultural. Distasteful as it may be, the fact is the Web has become part of pop culture. And the colorful Netscape extensions, which may or may not be clean HTML, are instituted. They make a real difference in the experience of a document. People appreciate being able to hone the presentation of their information (even if it means being a little rebellious). Every browser had better support them, or people won't use it/buy it. This is something w3.org should seriously consider. By not including Netscapisms in 3.0 they'll be consigning their favorite compliant browser to the vapor trail. And Netscape will gobble even more of the market. Once it has 90%, will development for Mosaic et al still be fun(ded)? > Style sheets are the right way. The multitude of heretical HTML users are awaiting 3.0, style sheets, applets, and anything else that will allow us to shape our information containers. But until they arrive, Netscape's market share will only increase. And the Academy's influence will wane reciprocally. kit blake ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ kitblake@gig.nl Amstel 222 ELECTROGIG Europe 1017 AJ Amsterdam http://www.gig.nl/ The Netherlands ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Received on Wednesday, 19 July 1995 06:18:12 UTC