Re: HTML should not be a file format, but an output format

   Date: Sat, 22 Mar 1997 19:16:26 -0500
   From: Paul Prescod <papresco@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca>
   X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.0b2 (Win95; I)
   MIME-Version: 1.0
   X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
   References: <199703222254.RAA07910@duality.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
   Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
   Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
   X-List-URL: http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/MarkUp/Forums#www-html
   X-See-Also: http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/MarkUp/
   Resent-From: www-html@w3.org
   X-Mailing-List: <www-html@w3.org> archive/latest/7617
   X-Loop: www-html@w3.org
   Sender: www-html-request@w3.org
   Resent-Sender: www-html-request@w3.org
   Precedence: list

   nemo/Joel N. Weber II wrote:

   > So I conclude that something standard like HTML is a great storage format.

   Something standard, yes. HTML, no. If HTML is such a perfect storage
   format why are you hesitating at converting your documents into it?

HTML is not exactly perfect for word processing.

But HTML is perfect for the web.

   > But I don't see why one file == one page ever causes lossage on the web.

   It doesn't. It is just inconvenient. File breakup of information never
   causes lossage -- files can always be "cat"ted. One file per page in a
   DTP program wouldn't cause lossage either: the word processor would just
   have to manage overflow from one page to another by shifting the
   overflow of one file to another. But that would be inconvenient, just as
   one file per page is inconvenient on the Web.

I still don't see why one file per page is inconvinient on the web.

Received on Saturday, 22 March 1997 19:42:52 UTC