Re: HTML4.0 draft: comments re: inclusion of frames (fwd)

At 7:26 PM -0500 1997-10-09, Liam Quinn wrote:
>HTML 4.0 clearly signals an intention to separate presentation from
>content, which means that it's not "too late" to stop the Web's slide into
>a visual wasteland.  The fight against Netscape's frames is part of the
>fight against a purely visual medium, but I think most people recognize
>that standardization of Netscape's frames is inevitable given their
>widespread use.  Hopefully in the future the W3C will push for deprecation
>of Netscape's frames and offer alternatives (e.g., based on the LINK
>element and CSS).

This is what I'm talking about--the last against the standardization of
these tags.  I support the work that 4.0 is doing, and I also recognize the
non-visual applications of HTML, *and* I choose, whenever possible, to use
style sheets rather than visual elements.  The whole point of my letter is
that I am tired of hearing people criticizing these standards and W3C as
making some kind of pact with the devil (ie, the BIG TWO).

Paper can be used to display a lot of different things--visual--ie,
drawings, paintings, typed text.  It can also be folded into shapes, or
burned, or shredded.  You can even make loud air poppers with it.  Like
paper, I think HTML can be used in many ways.  I think that it's great that
we have a medium which can have a visual potential (whether through the use
of elements or through style sheets) because it provides "artists" like me
a chance to express myself in a whole new interactive way.  I don't deny
the importance of having web pages that anyone can read through, regardless
of visual impairment or browser application.  However, it annoys me when
people start gettting on a harangue about having anything but the bare

[                    Jordan Reiter                     ]
[                 ]
[       Just smile and nod and say, "Yes, Jordan."     ]

Received on Wednesday, 10 September 1997 22:17:53 UTC