Re: Netscape, HTML, and Designers

Mark Connolly (
Wed, 19 Oct 1994 14:51:21 +0100

Richard L. Goerwitz" <> said/wrote:
>Presentation is critical, but involves too many details to be practical.
>Most of us, when we write, would prefer to have a general style sheet to
>handle all the low-level details, and be able just to get down to the
>business of writing. I'm personally willing to sacrifice the overall
>appearance of the document to get this convenience (and also the flexi-
>bility). HTML and SGML were written for people like me.

Well, I like to think HTML and SGML were written for people like me too,
since I'm not concerned excusively with the aesthetics of a design. I
appreciate and value the portability that logical styles provide. And I
don't want to see HTML's utility and long-term usefulness for people like
you (and me) diluted by pressures to give it more "page-layout-like"

>TeX and low-level formatting languages like PostScript are for people
>like you.

Umm, are there browsers that will interpret those languages "live" the way
Mosaic, NetScape interpret HTML? If not, I think one of the points I was
trying to make in my original post stands: users, and designers, will try
to make HTML do things (ie, page layout) that it wasn't intended to do.

WWW, and Mosaic, didn't experience explosive growth over the last year
because all users like logical markup. WWW provides attractive, simple,
_fun_ access to the wealth of information on the Internet. Many people
prefer to access information this way. I don't think it's unreasonable that
many did _not_ recognize that _logical markup_ was at work.

As more and more businesses and individuals join the net community, I think
the pressures on HTML will only increase.

>Let's just hope that neither of these kinds of tools go away any time

I totally agree. I just wonder what can be done to ensure it.


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Mark Connolly
Connolly Design Inc., Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *