- From: Benjamin Franz <snowhare@netimages.com>
- Date: Sun, 23 Mar 1997 11:09:49 -0800 (PST)
- To: www-html@w3.org
On Sun, 23 Mar 1997, Ingo Macherius wrote: > > Even more importantly - NO automated tool can deal with the experience > > gained knowledge of 'something that works in NS 2 and works in NS 3 and > > works in MSIE 3 and Lynx, but NS 4 rolls over and crys uncle *UNLESS* you > > do _this_'. > > I see this as part of the problem, not as a solution. HTML is going the > way BASIC was going in the 80's. See where BASIC is now ... Now imagine a world not only like BASIC - but one in which you had to write code that would successfully run under *all* those variants without any source changes and without doing anything fatal. You begin to see where the HTML designer today lives - and why automated tools are of only marginal use to them. If you think I believe this to be a *desirable* state of affairs, you are mistaken. It is the direct consequence of the fact that the standards have lagged considerablely behind implementations by browser makers - and often browser makers have failed to correctly implement the standards that do exist. I can't live in an idealized world of 'here is the standard everyone obeys' - because they *don't*. I have to push sites out the door *today* - and just because something is in the standards doesn't mean I can use it: Criteria #1 in my implementation book is _don't break people's browsers_. I would *LOVE* to be able to use OBJECT - but it breaks MSIE3. I would love to use external Client Side Image Maps - but they break NS3. I even came close to chucking stylesheets because MSIE and NS have managed to jointly draw a razor sharp edge you have tread so they don't break one or the other browser - I can't afford to break either. Given the choice between no stylesheets and stylesheets that broke either of them - I would lose the stylesheets. And I *LOVE* stylesheets (Sutailoshito ga dai suki da! ;-) ). I would love to see something I could use an automated tool on efficiently - but it won't be HTML. From the day Netscape packed their variant under 'text/html' two and half years ago - text/html has been hopelessly mixed with many different things all claiming to be the one true text/html. The solution *might* be XML - but then again, I seem to recall someone saying that NS has refused commitment to it (something I can well believe since there does not seem to even be one Netscape name in the XML draft credits). This may be enough to render XML a dead letter - which would be a crying shame. -- Benjamin Franz
Received on Sunday, 23 March 1997 14:09:42 UTC