🚀 go-pugleaf

Hello there Thomas Weigle !
On 27-Jan-97   02:07:35, you wrote about Re: Re- Bad HTML / frame usage :

> In article <6381.6963T1354T1786@ping.be>, Philippe Duchenne
> <Philippe.Duchenne@ping.be> wrote:

> <...>

>>   Standard: Whole characteristics and norms to which one can refer for
>>             products or values of the same nature.

> Sure. So what is the standard with many forces pulling in different
> directions? Which is more valid?

  The standard still is what has been *commonly* agreed.

>>   Does this seems a good "excuse" to you ?

> No, because it clearly doesn't satisfy everyone, it merely satisfies a

  Yes, but it left LESS people behind.

> minority. The others want more.

  False !  Because it has been commonly agreed, a standard does its job
  for minorities *AND* "the others".
  But sure, some will always want more, quickly...  No problem as long as
  the add-ons are not exclusives, or worst, destructives; in which case
  we can not talk about "standard" anymore.

  We can discuss about standard for long...
  I can start to produce watches that divide a holyday day in 25 hours.
  I can claim it's a new (MY) standard because I have produce 1 million
  of them.  Even if there are 1 million (cheated) users of My-Standard
  watch, the real standard still is 24 hours a day because every other
  watches, regardless the company, use the world accepted 24 hours/day.

>>   Minorities are always complaining...
>>   Minorities are disturbing our comfort...

> I don't want to get rid of them. I want them to be heard. I don't like
> setting the standards after them, though. As much as possible are done to
> satisfy minorities in modern communities, but you can't let them decide how
> everything should work, because then you would be ignoring all those who
> are not fortunate enough to be part of a minority. It applies to modern
      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
      ???  Are you joking ?

> life, you live by it, but it should not be valid on the WWW?

  I don't like the idea of bringing our real life class concept on
  the WWW.
  Once again, I don't want a Third WWW.

  (Will Humans ever learn from their mistakes ?  ;-)  )

>>   "COME IN MY WONDERLAND ! EVERYTHING IS EASY, FUNNY, COOL !  THERE'S
>>    SUN, THERE'S HAPPINESS, THERE'S...
>>
>>    What ?  You don't even have one dollar ???
>>
>>    Er... This wonderland is not for you, you need dollars to enter here.
>>    Come back later and be welcome if you have some."

> If you are not interested in buying, you're not very interesting to the
> companies. That easy. Has been so for the past five or six thousand years,
> ever since humans started doing trade.

> Commersialism applies to this medium just as it does everywhere else in our
> world. You may not like it. I don't for sure. I'm a marxist. Still, it's
> reality. And it will certainly become even more real to you. Even now,
> 1997, lynxists have good control and are fairly strong in numbers, but
> nowadays netscapers are far more common. You are not allowed to drive

  Iam not a lynxist nor a real anti-Netscaper (well, I don't beleive
  Microsoft will ever change, so Iam an anti-Microsoftist).
  I use IBrowse and Iam satisfied with this browser.

  I understand that most of the time, when I can't read a Web page, it's
  due to the webmaster's poor HTML usage, not my browser's limitation.
  Iam not just saying Netscape is crap, or this site is shit; I also
  try to give my humble help to Web sites creators.
  (see: Optimize your site
        http://www.axismundi.org/Cf/spiraea/amigaphil/BestViewed.html )

> Trabants here in Sweden because they're very unenvironmentalfriendly.
> Similarly, browsers who don't support what Netscape supports *today* are
> based on old standards and will most definitely be replaced in the near
> future. As for Lynx, I hope it is being updated to support *the features
> people clearly want*, not an obsolete "standard".

  Always the same song: "I will start to work for a better place when I'll
  see other people do.  Until then, I go where the money flows".

  "...the features people clearly want..."  Did you understand what you
  wrote ?  Please think again (there are more people in "people" than you
  think).
  Ok, Iam giving you a helping hand:

  Let's say *I* wish a browser that can convert any remote GIF pictures on
  the Web into IFF ILBM because it fit better MY system.  And I don't care
  if other people can't use them, they have to switch to my idea.
  *You* wish the same kind of browser but to convert pictures into BMP,
  because it's better for YOUR configuration (and you don't care if other
  people can't use this format as you think it's THE format).
  Someone else come and say: "Hey, why don't you use PNG ?  It's free and
  platform independant."
  We start to produce the browsers we want...

  What will be for you the most acceptable standard for pictures on the
  Web (STOP ! Have a breath... Think... Now go answer):

  - the one imposed by the most spread of our two browsers ?
  - PNG format ?

>>   *O U R*  World Wide Web !  WWW is a common place for EVERYONE !
>>   It's up to *us* to share it in peace and tolerance.

> No. * Y O U R * WWW. Which is kept in shape by a nice consortium who wants
> everyone to be able to see everything. Who is supported by companies who
> don't give a damn.

  Ok, if you really think so...
  But MY (so-called) WWW is also open to YOU, feel welcome !

> My WWW is like a trip to the city to buy some stuff on which I will buy
> stuff from the companies who has the most appealing displays with the stuff
> I want. If I happen to trip on their entrance carpet because I for some
> strange reason am wearing six inch heels, I wouldn't blame the company. I
> would leave, sure, but more because I would be ashamed of myself than
> because the company had erred (stupid-browser-choice analogy).

  I get the picture now.  If you travel to India, you just want to see
  the Taj Mahal.  And when back, you just say "India is beautifull !".

>>   Not that much as long as there are still a lot of people thinking
>>   Microsoft is THE way to go just because so many people already follow it.

> Ah. You might be getting the point. Too many use their products as it is.
> Yup. That's why even more will be using them when they make IE a part of
> their OS. Or do you think everybody will switch to OS/2 or Amigas all of a
> sudden? Won't happen. Similarly, people won't switch from Netscape and IE.

  You are right here.

  *I* wish people to *know* there are something else then Netscape
  Navigator and MSIE, so that they can have a better, objective
  opinion on what is a browser and which one best fit their needs.

  *I* wish people spreading information or selling goods not to be
  abettors of big companies' seizure (by ignorance, by negligence,
  by bad-will or for big-money reasons).

  *I* wish everyone to keep in mind:

  - A PC is a micro-computer, a micro-computer is *NOT* a PC,
  - Intel is a CPU fabricant, every CPU are *NOT* Intel made,
  - Windows is a OS (? ;-) ), an Operating System is *NOT* Windows,
  - MSIE is a Web browser,    a Web browser is *NOT* MSIE,
  - and so on...

  My preference for a computer dealer goes for someone that will
  show me an Intel Inside PC + MS Windows + MSIE *FIRST* (telling me
  it's the most commonly used system), *but* can also give me information
  on X, Y or Z if he thinks X, Y or Z might better satisfy my needs.



          Phil.
--
   Amiga ____   ------------------------------------------------.
  Phil  / / /  ------    Philippe Duchenne           | #PGP.key:#
 ____  / / /  E-Mail:   AmigaPhil@ping.be            | #9C07F6C1#
 \ \ \/ / /  WWWeb :   http://www.ping.be/amigaphil/ `----------|
  \ \/ / /  S-Mail:   PO Box 4222, B-6000 Charleroi 4, Belgium  |
   \/_/_/  ------    using AMIGA 4000/040@40Mhz, 34Mb Ram, CV64 |
          ------------------------------------------------------'
  PGP fp:    7C 40 02 C3 8D 90 81 30   81 28 67 FA FB DE A7 EC
--

Another empty space