- From: Jari Ollikainen <jari.ollikainen@dipoli.hut.fi>
- Date: Fri, 21 Jul 1995 11:20:24 -0600
- To: www-html@www10.w3.org
>On Tue, 18 Jul 1995, Michael Johnson wrote: > >> >with a 60% market share. Most of the Web page designers that I work >>with, and I >> >work with many, include Netscape extensions without thinking twice about it. >> >> Which just goes to show that there are a lot of damned idiots out there >> designing web pages, but we knew that already. >[...] > >> Yes, I'm being an idealist here. Right now, the web needs idealists, and it >> needs them in large, highly vocal, numbers if we're to get the web back on >> the track that it ought to be on. > >Let me cut to the chase: > ><rant> >Write and release a full featured production HTML 3.0 browser for >Windows, Macintosh and Unix (in order of market importance). Or quit >whining that other people aren't spending their money they way you >want them to. > >Is HTML 3.0 technically superior to N-HTML? Without a question. > >I am a great fan of standards. I also know when someone is playing King >Canute. Likewise... >Netscapisms *WILL NOT* go away until equivalent functionality is >in HTML 3.0 and in production browsers for Windows and Mac. All >the debate about whether or not the extensions are good or bad is utterly >moot. There are here. They are staying. That battle is already >completely lost. New browsers are implementing Netscapisms. They are the >*de facto* standard. The Microsoft color extensions to Netscape's <font > >extensions are sure to catch on like wildfire as well. So. What's your point in here... No need for *de facto* standard or ... >How did this happen? Easy - they quit *talking* about standards to be >implemented in some distant future and shipped product (no matter how >badly thought out some the extension are). The HTML standards process risks >becoming irrelevant. Not because the standards are bad - because the >people developing them are too damn slow in closing and implementing >them. It is 'committee-itis' at its worst. I have my doubts as to >whether or not HTML 2.0 would be closed today (it *is* closed, right? >Dan?) if Netscape hadn't kicked everyone in the shins. > >As for implementing HTML 3.0 - which version? The version that was talked >about last week, or the version that will be talked about next week? >Companies are not going to write browsers to support 3.0 features that >are not STABLE. It cost real money to re-engineer. Especially after shipping. > >So close the damn thing. Write a killer HTML 3.0 browser. Kick Netscape and >Microsoft's asses to hell and gone. > Right. Close HTML 3.0 and let's start talkin' next phase... what ever it's # is!!! >Idealism is no substitute for shipping product. Nop. But it want pay either... // Jari Ollikainen jari.ollikainen@hut.fi // Helsinki University of Technology // Lifelong Learning Institute Dipoli Tel. +358 0 451 4065 // TechNet Finland Fax: +358 0 451 4487 // FI-02150 ESPOO, FINLAND
Received on Friday, 21 July 1995 04:20:28 UTC