davidkin hollywood
 |
Saturday, February 16, 2002 |
|
Dave Winer: "I think the CSS zealots are out to lunch, but yesterday we shipped a CSS theme for Manila. I see a trend." Hehe. Many vocal customers are happier now. Can't be all bad, can it? Thanks. comment 10:07:58 AM 
|
|
Jarl Karlsberg writes: The secret is that HTML is a lot like paper: almost every program on your computer can "output as HTML" just as naturally as they can "output to paper". But once you have that paper copy in your hand (or that HTML copy loaded in your browser), don't expect to be able to do much with it besides look at it.Thanks for this.. perhaps I understand it a little better now. But thinking back to HTML 1.0, I don't think there was any presentation-based markup. And the first browsers weren't graphical. Now I know that argument really doesn't matter now: what was intended ten years ago and what it has become are clearly two different things. But if we're trying to achieve a goal like a well-linked, richly tagged hypertext on the internet, you'd think that there would be more push to the layoutless model. Then again, maybe that's not something many people are after anymore. I'm beginning to see that this is coming down to a dispute of the kind often heard about natural languages, where the prescriptive camp says, "your use of 'don't got no' is improper English," and the descriptive camp says "double negatives can be emphatic, and because people use them that way, they are a part of English." Strict-HTML proponents being the former, Transitionals the latter. If a semantic web is now supported by exchanged XML rather than indexed and interlinked HTML, I can accept that. It may even be better that way. But there still seems to be something very powerful about the idea of any agent, be it a crawler, a text reader, or any other device, being able to reach the same data and deal with it in their own particular idiom. comment 1:16:22 AM
|