- From: Jim Wise <jimw@numenor.turner.com>
- Date: Sat, 12 Jul 1997 23:46:59 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Jordan Reiter <jreiter@mail.slc.edu>
- Cc: "Chapman, Hass" <hass.chapman@sebank.se>, walter@natural-innovations.com, www-html@w3.org
On Sat, 12 Jul 1997, Jordan Reiter wrote: > But I think this sort of discussion is kind of pointless in this group. > Suffice it to say that the ease of viewing information under HTML, and > especially of accessing information through HTML (particularly through > Netscape and IE) has led to the visual perception of HTML. And however > wrong this may be, it is pretty much the easiest way to explain HTML and > the web itself to those wholly unfamiliar with it. Now, more than ever, > people expect visual content from HTML--because it is essentially the only > universal language of the web. And because the web is perceived as > graphical, HTML will continue to be used (as wrong as this may be) in a > visual fashion. It is essentially impossible to avoid. Perhaps it is impossible to avoid in discussion of HTML in general, but certainly not in standardization of HTML. HTML is being used, and has the potential to be used for a lot more than visual presentation, and it would be wrong for the standard to ignore this fact or, worse, for the standard to interfere with HTML usage for non-visual purposes. Happily, the new standard provides an excellent method (CSS) for specifying visual content without interfering with the nature of HTML as a structural markup language. -- Jim Wise jim.wise@turner.com
Received on Saturday, 12 July 1997 23:53:07 UTC