Indeed, where "right" is almost universally defined as "how Netscape draws
it". Personally, I hope that as browser add support for Adobe PDF, that
content will split into Acrobat pages (from content authors who want
precise control over appearance) and HTML (from content providers who
care more about content than appearance). I think this would be a very
healthy development. It's certainly better at reinventing ODA (which can
mix structural & visual markup, but is almost impossible to write by hand,
even in SGML syntax).
> Just a quick idea: NCSA Mosaic has a "Style Window" which lets people adjust
> the display carateristics for various tags. I would love to see some "market
> research" to find out what sort of people actually used this feature (if any).
Well, our browser has only "small/medium/large" for text size, and the rest
of the style sheet is current note user editable. We've gotten far, far fewer
complaints than we expected. Either users don't care, or they like Palatino
a lot :).
> BUT, I don't think this working group should be so naive as to think that we
> have some pure idea of what HTML ought to be and that we can convince the
> whole world to follow.
I think that this working group, by definition, is charged with defining HTML.
On the other hand, I think that the WWW, by definition, supports mutiple
content formats of which HTML is only one.
> rather that in the attempts of the various commercial vendors to outdo each
> other we will be left with a mass of incompadible crap.
This has already happened, Alex :).
Amanda Walker
InterCon Systems Corporation