How far should HTML go (functionally)?

David - Morris (
Thu, 4 May 95 00:28:46 EDT

On Wed, 3 May 1995, Lou Montulli wrote:

> On May 3, 4:06pm, Dan Connolly wrote:

> > I think folks that want a lot more structure etc. should look into
> > building their own DTDs and using something like the DSSSL-Lite
> > browsers that are in development. Check out docbook, qwertz, etc.
> It's important to keep to a single format, that's one of the
> web's biggest features, a unifying layout language that encompasses
> vast amounts of information.

I almost agree!! I would change the description to fully recognize
the importance of FORMs. The very broad deployment of the vast
majority of the capabilities is what is driving the rapid acceptance
of the WEB as a standard for information interchange. No longer
do information providers have to worry about getting their proprietary
user interface deployed.

> >
> > I think folks that want a lot more presentation info should look
> > into PDF, dvi and the like.
> PDF does provide alot of presentation support but it has lots and
> lots of drawbacks as well. It's hugh and bulky and hard to
> process as well as not adapting to resizing windows.
> >
> > We've got a little more work to do on HTML so that it can represent
> > conventional word-processing documents, and then we should close
> > the book and move on.
> I completely disagree. HTML is capible of defining completely
> new dynamic interfaces and unique electronic-only styles. We
> should be expanding HTML to take advantage of it's medium.

Absolutely! We must work very hard to avoid the tower of babel syndrome
and keep the incentives high for wide deployment of new function.
Fragmenting into new standards will not encourage that objective.

Dave Morris