- From: Lee Daniel Crocker <lcrocker@calweb.com>
- Date: Sat, 31 Aug 1996 14:51:09 -0700 (PDT)
- To: www-html@w3.org
[ I am replying to, but will not reproduce here, the recent volumes of mail on the tired old content v. flash war ignited by the initial post about moving backgrounds ] Can we refocus this list on its purpose, which to me seems obvious: to dicuss possible new features of HTML, not of specific client programs like browsers? The original comment about animated backgrounds needs no discussion here, because HTML already has a way to do that without affecting the content. Browsers will either support it or not, but HTML is done on the issue. The content v. fluff war is just hot air and serves no purpose here. Who the hell are we to tell designers what they need and don't need? They're professionals just like we are, and if they say they want moving logos, then dammit, we need to find a way to give them moving logos that fits into our information structure, or else they'll find a way to do it that doesn't, and we both lose. On the one real HTML issue on the table (tabular <select>), I find the proposal not clearly necessary enough to justify the incompatibility and burden of implementation, when the function could already be better served with Java. -- Lee Daniel Crocker <lee@piclab.com>
Received on Saturday, 31 August 1996 17:57:57 UTC