- From: Keith Bowes <keith_bowes@hotmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 04:40:07 -0400
- To: www-html@w3.org
When I read about new standards, one question always comes to mind: What's the point of new standards if no one uses them? Hence, my proposal. >I know of nothing in proprietary markup that has no equivalent in the current recommendations. (Even that awful blinking thing is in CSS.) Here are some things I can't find a standard equivalent for. Please tell me if there is some equivalent: *BACKGROUND SOUND for VISUAL BROWSERS (like can be accomplished with <BGSOUND> or <SOUND> in the <HEAD> or <EMBED Autostart="true" Hidden="true"> in the <BODY>). *Scrolling and sliding text (like can be accomplished with the <MARQUEE> tag). *A specification of how much space between adjacent frames (like can be accomplished with <FRAMESET Border=>). >The id and class attributes are designed to do just that and are exposed for all elements. What can class do besides apply stylesheet rules? What can id do besides identify an element (so you can change the attibutes of only that element)? I'm talking about true dynamicness and animation. Perhaps you've noticed the rise in the use of Internet Explorer since "Dynamic HTML" was introduced in version 4. The reason is undoubtably that people know what they want web pages to be. It would be pretty hard for the W3C to control everybody, despite how much they want to. >The whole premise behind your proposal is deconstructive to the long term usefulness of HTML. Short term needs are met with older and proprietary 'versions' of HTML along with HTML/4.0 Transitional and Frameset. You are looking at HTML through a tunnel. I do not believe that you are considering the total impact of your proposal. And, I believe that you are making wide-spread assumptions about the use of HTML. I don't agree with you. My proposal is actually based on ACTUAL use. Go around the Internet. How many people use XML? Not very many (if any). How many people use non-standard constructs to achieve what's impossible with standard? Most. You'll see that my proposal will probably be accepted better by the majority than the current standard. You need to understand that web designers and surfers aren't drones, subjects, or slaves, but people that know what they want, and they won't listen to the W3C if the W3C can't deliver an equally or more appealing alternative. >I am getting those nasty "but, it'll be so cool" vibes again. That bothers me. Netscape did that when designing their browser, and, it has become a recurring nightmare for nearly everyone since. I agree, Netscape has implemented their innovations poorly. But Microsoft has applied, fixed, and expanded these technologies so that they actally do look cool. Personally, I love it when people write and say they love my site, and it's even more gratifying when someone asks me how I did it. >You have to remember that none of your proposals would be incorporated any faster than the current recommendations. Wrong. They're already implemented in the majority of web sites. Once again, what's the point of standards if no one uses them? The opposite approach would be more logical- make standards and implementations based on what's used. >I completely understand your proposal. It is not post-modern Right, again. It's "modern" and "post-modern". Modern in this is already the version people use. Post-modern in a way that it's more powerful and user-friendly than the current standard. >I've seen hundreds of HTML version proposals come and go. They all suffered the same problem: they were all designed by small groups of people, often only one person So, we're revolutionaries. Sometimes we lose and sometimes we win. There's no reason to give up something we feel is right just because we might lose. >, who haven't a complete understanding of the real power of HTML. I'm not going to fight with those of you on the dark side. With the force as our ally, we will win. Besides, there's more of us than of you. >Do you have any idea who the W3C represents? Yes. A group of corporate monopolies that don't care about what is actually used and wanted, are living in some sort of "W3C" utopia, and actually have the money to have the say-so in standards. I defy the W3C. I seriously doubt their opinion of me and other non-paying entities could get any lower. >It isn't some self-proclaimed bunch of nuts. I disagree, again. Anything that thinks it'll be listened to just because it proclaims itself authoritative is a couple of sandwiches short of a picnic. >You should have a look at the member list sometime. You might be surprised. I doubt it. I neither fear nor respect the "leaders of industry". Spock: It has always been easier to destroy than to create. -Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982; PG; Action/Sci-fi)
Received on Sunday, 24 October 1999 04:37:39 UTC