🚀 go-pugleaf

On Thu, 16 Jan 1997 21:40:16 GMT, Dirk.Jumpertz@ping.be (Dirk
Jumpertz) wrote:

>On Tue, 14 Jan 1997 15:41:44 GMT, liam@htmlhelp.com (Liam Quinn)
>wrote:
>
>>Have you ever looked at some of the innovations proposed by the W3C?
>>No?  Then how can you make such a statement?
>
>Who said I didn't???

I assumed this when you said that you hadn't read the HTML 3.0 or HTML
3.2 proposals.

>I read about the style sheets, the new tags (<DIV> and other), the use
>of symbols (for scientific notations (maths, physics, chemistry))
>
>In essence these are welcome additions to HTML whci will only make it
>richer... but the truth is that the use of the Internet has shifted.
>No longer the WWW is used to propagate scientific documents, but it's
>focussing on different markets. In these markets these new addtions to
>HTML have little or no added value.

How do style sheets not apply to all markets?  How do style sheets not
have significant added value?

>>Take a look at things like HTML 3.0 (dead because Netscape and
>>Microsoft preferred their own "innovation") and you'll see what
>>innovation truly is.  Don't forget about Cascading Style Sheets, which
>>have been around for years, but are only now gaining attention at
>>"innovative" companies like Microsoft and Netscape.  And what about
>>PNG?  With all of its advantages over GIF and its promotion by the
>>W3C, it still is not supported by Microsoft or Netscape.  Where's the
>>innovation?
>
>JAVA

A good innovation from Sun...  I'm not implying that the W3C must be
the only innovator on the Web.  I was arguing against your implication
that Microsoft and Netscape were more innovative than the W3C.

>JScript, VBScript, Javascript, ActiveX, ASP documents etc,
>etc,...

Many (all?) of these are poorly implemented, and authors simply cannot
rely on them.  There was little thought towards
backwards-compatibility, making a transition to something like
client-side scripting very difficult.

>If you compare supporting a new graphic fileformat to the addition of
>interactivity and client side processing... what would be the most
>interesting feature?

I think they're all important and interesting.  I happen to think that
the need for PNG is above the need for the features you've mentioned,
but I recognize that that's highly debatable.

>>This isn't accurate at all, as I've pointed out above.  One could say
>>that *standardization* at the W3C is slow, but this is natural and, in
>>fact, necessary to ensure that a standard is completely accurate.
>
>But in real life browsers are adding new features all the time and
>seem not to give a damn about the standards, then what is the use of
>an "institute" like the W3C?

To convince people that standards are worthwhile?  Do you like the
balkanization of the Web?

>Don't get me wrong... with innovation I mean "looking beyond the
>borders of conventional HTML" What the W3C does is improving and
>finetuning (and playing policeman, I suppoce), it's not innovating.

I fail to see how Cascading Style Sheets, which certainly look "beyond
the borders of conventional HTML", are not innovative.  I fail to see
how PNG, which has nothing to do with HTML, is not innovative.

>>>Since HTML 2.0 I have the impression that the W3C is drifting apart
>>>from the Real World...
>>
>>Can you explain this?
>
>Sure, create a real HTML3.2 document

(I thought you said you hadn't read the HTML 3.2 spec?)

>and feed it to Netscape 3.0 (or
>4.0) and MSIE 3.0 and see what happens.

No problem.  I do this all the time.

>How much is truely understood
>by the browsers?

Virtually all of it.

>And then take a close look at the high tech sites...
>where's the HTML gone???

How usable are the "high-tech sites"?

Liam Quinn
===============  http://www.htmlhelp.com/%7Eliam/  ===============
Web Design Group            Enhanced Designs, Web Site Development
http://www.htmlhelp.com/    http://enhanced-designs.com/