- From: David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
- Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 21:44:48 +0100 (BST)
- To: www-style@w3.org
> document language, it is used as a document language, an interface > language, a general purpose XML grammar and several other things. That's because of a couple of problems: 1) People seem unable to grasp the concept that different jobs need different tools**, e.g. if visual appearence is paramount, then PDF has been much more appropriate at doing that, even in its pre-HTML form, than HTML. 2) People want to treat web browsers as though they were graphical libraries, rather than document viewers. The point being that it avoids them having to arrange for a more appropriate graphical library to be installed by the user. (Microsoft's .NET, although probably done more because a standard like HTML doesn't allow them to exploit their monopoly well, probably better addresses that requirement.) > Advances would be made more quickly if they were aimed at the current > situation, rather than a theoretical one. I'm not saying either is the What is being asked for is often a return to pre-HTML days, so I'm not sure that "advances" is a good term to use. ** Some of the things that people seem to want, like liquid layouts as good as handcrafted layouts, that work whatever the display technology and user preferences and overrides are still research topics. Especially if you also want them to be intuitive to an 18 year old arts student.
Received on Thursday, 3 July 2003 17:13:44 UTC