🚀 go-pugleaf

weigle@snip-to-mail.algonet.se (Thomas Weigle) writes:
>To cut down on this thread and instead try to start a new one, if at all
>necessary ...

Since you only rehash the same old "move with the times" bullshit, it
doesn't seem "necessary", no...

>Information is finding itself dwarfed by 'exchange' and entertainment, to
>use David Siegel's terms. Most people don't look for it, and when they do,
>they will find a graphical site just as good as a purely informational.
>Besides, as I've tried to explain, form is part of the information.

I see: So the written word _did_ die with the advent of television. In the
new world, the consumer is apparently expected to conform to the wishes of
the producer, not the other way around. So much for capitalism.

>
>David Siegel's sites are probably visited by more people than are your
>sites, simply because people don't look for information but for
>entertainment. It's not strange to see 'graphically advanced' being
>celebrated in magazines, etc. These people clearly want this feature, even
>if it happens to mean that a standard is being flouted.

You get "graphically advanced" in Shockwave, PDF, VRML, whatever. So use
that, instead of trying to assimilate HTML into something it ain't.

As for 'celebrated in magazines', I never consider marketing hype to have
any bearing on reality. You, apparently, have a different view.

>
>I tell them that we will have to put extra time into developing item x to
>fit more browsers, yes. I tell them that item x will in its current state
>only work in browser y and they usually think it's worth the extra time to
>make it available to browser z as well. Oh, most clients tell me that it
>won't be necessary: their clientele use Netscape 2.0 or later.

Interesting that the same people who choose to ignore the 'Text' part of
HTML are the same who ignore the 'World' part of WWW.

We _do_ so sorely need an intranet hierarchy of newsgroups.

>
>SGML may be great to get your scientific essay to everybody that might find
>it interesting, but SGML-HTML in its current form does not satisfy either
>users or browser manufacturers, so it won't be used until it does. It's not
>just something I make up to feel better about designing for Netscape
>Navigator, it's a fact.

Ooh, so _nice_ of you to decide what is best for me! I mean, it's not like
there are _alternatives_ to hacking HTML into whatever suits you, oh noo!
Curses be if you actually had to _learn_ a tool which would do the job for
you, instead of struggling with a tool which, as you so pointedly say,
"does not satisfy".

Say "Postscript" ten times, repeat until it sits. Then go bloody _learn_
it!

>General comment:
>
>People are already raving about the coolness of layers and absolute
>positioning in Netscape 4.0. They will not care if these features cause
>endless problems for a small percentage of all WWW users.

Do you promote trade monopolies in other arenas as well?

>
>The W3C can introduce all the cool stuff they want, this will not matter as
>long as Netscape and Microsoft, two companies that are a part of the W3C,
>keep introducing new tags. Why do they do that when they are a part of the
>W3C? Because they understand what the market wants. Because they realize
>that 'we' bring more money into the net than 'you' do, and money, after
>all, is what makes the world go round.

Would you like it if standars disappeared alltogether? If you had to buy
your phone from a manufacturer who "happened" to use the extensions put
forth by mr MegaCorporation who installs phone switches which change their
configuration regularly to fuck it up for everybody else? When you buy a
car, do you expect the steering wheel to work the way it did on another
manufacturer's car?

Sheesh. The blindness of some people.

>
>A natural development would be to ask designers what they want, then to see
>how it could be implemented. Instead of trying to force a standard onto me,
>a standard that I will not follow because it does not fulfill my needs, W3C
>et al should ask me what I would like to have, then they should consider if
>that is at all possible. And then they need to update the standard before
>Netscape release the next version of their browser.

No: There are far too many users. If it does not fulfill your needs, use
something else that does. You don't want logical markup - fine. Don't use
it. But _please_ don't prevent the rest of us from doing it! Go play in
your _own_ sandbox!

[More 'Netscape are Gods' crap deleted. Do you perchance work in their
marketing zombie department?]

>
>The W3C will most definitely lose the war if they can't find a way to
>advance past Netscape in terms of 'cool' effects.

If you want 'cool' effects, use Shockwave or Java. Don't pretend HTML will
be something it isn't.

- Tor Iver

-- 
"Growing conspiracy           |   toriver@pvv.org
 Myself is after me           |   http://www.pvv.org/%7Etoriver
 Frayed ends of sanity        |
 Hear them calling, hear them calling me." - Metallica