RE: Deal with it (was Re: uppercase vs. lower case)

Here I must agree whole Heatedly.  I do not understand why XML was not put
through the same paces as HTML, evolving over the years, or at least tested
by and large on the web before people begin integrating it with the one
language we and countless others are working day and night on perfecting.  
As for the browser support I Firmly and Honestly believe that, it is in a
sense up to us to get to that place where we as developers and programmers
are satisfied that our language will go forward and simply put..."Go With
It"... Find a browser that at least gets as close to supporting our efforts
as humanly possible and say "Hey we are here, either get right or get left
behind".  I do believe that those who are developing the browsers out there
will see that continuously releasing versions which are incompatible with
the language being used on the web will put them in a position to
Re-evaluate their thinking process if not their jobs.  We have been bullied
far too long in the sense that "we the Writers of the planet"  have been
forced to comply with every whiney baby whim the mega-corps of moneygrubbers
utter.  Having spent a great deal of time in conversations with webmasters
around the globe one thing has become painfully clear.  "We" are the masses,
and we can choose to lead or follow but we cannot do both.

Have a great day...

Mykal A. Luttrell Sr.
Crane Hydro-Aire
(818) 526-2510
"Member, International Webmasters Association http://iwanet.org"
"Member, HTML Writers Guild                            http://www.hwg.org"

> ----------
> From: 	Robert Rothenberg[SMTP:wlkngowl@unix.asb.com]
> Sent: 	Thursday, March 04, 1999 3:55 AM
> To: 	George Lund
> Cc: 	www-html@w3.org
> Subject: 	Deal with it (was Re: uppercase vs. lower case)
> 
> On 1 Mar 99, George Lund wrote:
> 
> > By and large, HTML has evolved so that it is backwards/forwards-
> > compatible. So, with minor modifications and perhaps the removal of
> 
> And by and large, browsers have evolved the same way, leading to bloat 
> and bugs.
> 
> > certain deprecated or obsolete elements, an HTML 2 document can conform
> > to HTML 4.
> > 
> > With 'XHTML' (so-called), huge numbers of valid HTML 4 documents are no
> > longer valid, even though 'XHTML' is supposed to be the same as HTML 4.
> > IMO a big mistake was made when XML was formulated, but it is clear that
> 
> Tag soup has never been valid, but browsers have dealt with it. For a 
> variety of reasons, trying to handle tag soup along with case insensitive 
> elements in XML will lead to bigger bloat and more bugs.
> 
> Bloat is a big issue. Not everyone is running a 500MHZ Pentium III with 
> 100-zillion gigs of RAM and disk space and a tabloid size monitor. These 
> standards are meant so all sorts of equipment... from palmtop gadgets to 
> braile readers to televisions to microwave ovens and even a 286 (which to 
> some is a doorstop while others are making productive use of).
> 
> Rather than bickering over minor issues like the case of elements, put the
> 
> effort into encouraging browser makers (Navigator, IE, Opera, Lynx, 
> Mosaic, etc.) to support the various specifications so developers and
> users 
> can get on with *using* (both reading and writing) the web.
> 
> And if one reads the specs closely, they do a good job exlaining the 
> rationale behind such restrictions as case sensitivity.
> 
> At this point I'd be happy to see a widely used browser that conforms to 
> minimum specs (HTML 4, CSS1, ECMA Script, HTTP 1.1) let alone the 
> "new" stuff (CSS2, XSL, XML et cetera...).
> 
> Rob
>

Received on Thursday, 4 March 1999 10:37:11 UTC