No argument. I don't think Acrobat is a replacement for HTML, any more
than I think HTML should become a replacement for Acrobat (or any other
page description syntax).
However, for applications which involve interactive access to structured
graphics, as opposed to structured text or document repositories, Acrobat
is in my view a better solution than trying to make HTML into a universal
syntax for all content.
HTML is, after all, "Hypertext Markup Language." It is by original design
limited in scope to, well, marking up hypertext. Many people have lost sight
of that scope, and have decided to make it their personal holy grail of
universal content syntax. This is, I feel, fundamentally misguided (and yes,
I will be honest in faulting Netscape for much of this, as they have tried
to transform the WWW into an advertising platform instead of building
something designed for the demands of advertising from the ground up).
HTML, or for that matter, SGML, *is not a universal solution to all problems
of information dissemination*.
Amanda Walker
InterCon Systems Corporation