Re: Strict DTD a new twist

Gregor, Fuzzy, et al:

Let me come down on the side of ... "You just can't please them ALL !!"

I looked at WAP and some of these other proposed thing-a-ma-bobs being
sprinkled about for "personal" devices. There is just NO WAY these toys are
going to show anything close to what we now accept as a web page.

And I say, So what!!

You can't watch television on a five dollar transistor radio. Sure they both
use the same airwaves but they are two different things. You can't read a
newspaper on a wrist watch TV. It just isn't practical!!

Sure--a lot of people are going to buy these things--but that does not mean
that they are EVER going to have much to do with web sites. It's just a
different media. Just like you don't listen to a symphony over the
telephone, people will soon realize you can't surf the web with a cell
phone.

Why?? Simply because they are just too DARN small to be able to convey any
meaningful info beyond a line or two.

What we may do however--for those that have the time--is sell the client
some sort of presence on the web designed especially for these tiny devices.
They may be used more as advertisements for the real web site rather than
try to dispense any substantial amount of information. But we can sell both
types of media--much as a printer will sell different types of print.

Think of these little tizzy's as a business cards and a normal web site as
more like a big, interactive brochure. Two totally different things.

Granted, sooner or later, some new form of technology may replace a web site
as we now know it. I suspect it will be later, however. Inventors have been
claiming for decades that they have doomed the internal combustion engine,
but so far, it's still going strong.

Best wishes
Ted Temer
Temercraft Designs Redding, CA
temer(at)c-zone.net
www.temercraft.com/
www.newsredding.com/


> At 11:06 PM 1/6/01 +0100, Gregor Pirnaver wrote:
> >Note that sometimes you "just have to" burn bridges behind
> >you (people are not the only ones reading and writing on
> >the Internet).
>
> Which opens up a whole new can of worms.
>
> I think it pretty safe to speculate that in the near future, screens are
> going to be getting smaller, many new "Internet devises" are going to be
> hitting the main stream that actually bring "any time any where" Internet
> access into the realms of reality.
>
> Something has to give.
>
> I have to admit, even as anal as I am about standards compliance, the
> thought of seeing my work on a screen measuring 1.5X2 inches on the back
of
> a cell phone scares the hell out of me.
>
> Yea, Yea. I read about the fancy new PROPRIETARY display languages. The
> problem is . . . there isn't a bunch of different Internets, there is only
> one. How are "we" going to keep the consumer using a PDA from trying to
> view our "best viewed with 800X600 at 24 bit color" pages? How are we
going
> to keep Jeff and his 21" 19000X 36000 MAC Hi-Res monitor off our pages
> designed for display in a two inch square?
>
> Problem huh?
>
> Obviously we are going to have to move to some type of "system" that will
> detect the viewer agent and parse out a page specifically designed for
that
> agent dynamically.
>
> >From what I have read, XML is moving us in that direction. My gut, and a
> review of the language, tell me that is going to work . . . eventually.
>
> In the interim we are in a real bind. I probably don't need to  tell any
of
> you that we are in a bad situation as developers as a matter of course.
>
> In order to meet our (often implied) obligation we have to progress
forward
> (create a page that looks good in NN6.X) while not excluding the vast
> majority of the planet that ~wishes~ they could upgrade to NN 3.X (but
> can't because their MAC LCII's and 286's simply can not run it).
>
> It is a tough situation even in its simplest form.
>
> Say I'm doing a job for a public information document archive. I can
> reasonably expect these documents to remain posted and the content
> unmodified for YEARS.
>
> What language do I use to present them? Do I bid the job based on the
> inclusion of a FULL update and recoding in six months or . . . two years?
>
> Even if I use HTML and write to version 2.0, the thought of a page
> consisting of two or three hundred words being viewed on a screen
measuring
> 1.5X2 inches is just plain unacceptable.
>
> Conversely, Jeff is going to hate me for presenting 2 or three hundred
> words in rectangular block format on his three city block sized MAC
monitor
> running NN 8.X.
>
> Now. Mary comes along with her fancy new browser that will allow her to
> customize the navigation buttons on my page. Heck, she can even change her
> viewing window from rectangular to ROUND.
>
> Gregor is absolutely correct and is being 110% reasonable in his
conclusion.
>
> The problem is . . .
>
> Which bridges, and when do we set them afire?
>
> What's a Web Geek to do?!?!?!?!
> Fuzzy.
> ______________________________________________________________
> Captain F.M. O'Lary
> webmaster(at)canopy.net
> Another year ends.
> All targets met. All systems working. All customers satisfied.
> All staff eagerly enthusiastic. All pigs fed and ready to fly.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>

HTML: hwg-basics mailing list archives, maintained by Webmasters @ IWA