Re: Start with HTML or XHTML? (slightly OT)

by "Kehvan M. Zydhek" <kehvan(at)>

 Date:  Wed, 13 Mar 2002 09:58:01 -0800
 To:  <cbirds(at)>,
 References:  ipsvc
  todo: View Thread, Original
"cbirds" (a pity you feel you can't use your real name in your posts),

Tsk tsk tsk... You have your opinions, I have mine, and everyone else =
has their's. Accept it. You like NS4.x... good for you! SOMEONE has to =
actually support it. And based on comments I read from you a few weeks =
ago, your writing style isn't adversely effected by NS4.x's =
shortcomings. However, since I support the W3C's standards, I write for =
the CURRENT form of coding, that being XHTML and CSS, both of which =
NS4.x is notorious for NOT supporting very well. It does handle SOME of =
both, but is far from being even close to compliant.

Oddly enough, the most standards-compliant browser yet is Netscape 6.21, =
based on Mozilla's GECKO engine. Granted, this particular engine doesn't =
like oldtech writing styles, refuses to use the NS-specific enhancements =
(or even IE-specific enhancements) to HTML, and can generally make =
oldtech pages look like crap, but what it does to newtech pages is =
amazing. Sure, people are having some problems getting their pages to =
look right in this browser at times, but that's because they're still =
used to using oldtech hacks they learned to make their pages look =
somewhat identical in IE4/NS4. Once their writing styles are modified to =
what has been a standard for two years now, the pages look great.

Now, as for the more personal comment, "if you lose this guy ONE =
customer, you might be OUT as his designer. :-)" well, that's not =
happened yet, and I basically have told the client AND the visitors =
using oldtech browsers that I will no longer support them. Last summer, =
I told my client to find a new designer for his site, because I refuse =
to build two versions of the same site to support some 200-500 hits per =
month using oldtech browsers. He looked. No one wanted the job because =
the site was "too complex" to build and maintain at the price he could =
afford. Good thing he's a close friend of mine, or even I wouldn't do =
this site. As such, I *DO* have some say into what the site will and =
will not do. In my previous email, I merely hinted at being the site's =
administrator -- basically, I design, build, run, maintain, and update =
the site. As long as it meets his requirements, I can do pretty much =
anything I want to his site (he said so four years ago)... AND I DO. =
That includes supporting only newtech now.

Finally, and I could be WAY off base on this one, but I can all but =
guarantee that you wouldn't touch this site if your life depended on it. =
Why? Simple: Even though I don't know you, I can almost guess that this =
is not your type of site. This is a niche site. It's amazingly popular =
despite that, but it's still a niche. We're not talking Coca-Cola or TDK =
or something stupendously high-profile. This is a small site, with a =
very targeted audience (with about 5000-10000 hits per month). =
Okay-fine. SOMEONE'S gonna ask, and many undoubtedly think they know =
already so I'll just say it: It's an ADULT site, but not a P O R N site. =
It's a high-tech, NOT run-of-the-mill, online adult-oriented digital =
magazine. I designed it to NOT LOOK like the typical ADULT site (I made =
it professional, not sleazy), and the people who visit it like that =
fact. There. Move on.

The audience for that site uses newtech browsers. I should know. I've =
been tracking the types of browsers used on this site for five years, =
and it's amazing how quickly the audience embraces the best browsers =

As I said at the beginning, we all have our own opinions. I feel I know =
yours based on comments to this thread and others... you like oldtech, =
and that's perfectly fine. I, on the other hand, can't stand oldtech and =
can't wait for it to go away (which it will, sooner than you think). =
Sure, there will be some die-hards who insist oldtech is better because =
it was smaller and faster loading. On those points I don't disagree at =
all. But what's the point of sticking to what WAS when we can have what =
WILL BE? If we all stuck to what WAS, we'd still be listening to music =
on scratchy vinyl LPs and 8-Track tapes, not downloading high-quality =
digital songs off the internet in MP3 and WMA format (which were ripped =
from little plastic dohickies called CDs); we'd still watch THREE WHOLE =
CHANNELS OF MONAURAL television, not be on the cusp of HDTV with six =
channels of discrete digital audio. The world moves on. The internet =
moves on. Keep to the oldtech browsers and writing if you wish to; there =
IS a market for it. But I and others feel it's time to cut the ties to =
the past and embrace the future.

Good day to you,
Kehvan M. Zydhek


:: NORTON ANTI-VIRUS 2002 scanned this email prior to sending. It is =
:: of any known embedded or attached viruses, trojans, or internet =

----- Original Message -----=20
From: <cbirds(at)>
To: <hwg-techniques(at)>
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 08:44
Subject: Re: Start with HTML or XHTML? (slightly OT)

> Kehvan M. Zydhek hunted and pecked out this message on 3/13/2002 11:07 =
> >then you can possibly turn them away from the Dark Side (aka Netscape =
> >and WebTV).
> This is ridiculous when Netscape 4.7.9 works best on many computers.
> Even just 5% would be enough to be financial viable and it only takes =
> few seconds to check it.=20
> Just think, if you lose this guy ONE customer, you might be OUT as his =

> designer. :-)
> A very bad position to take.
> But that's OK because then people get complaints about their site, and =

> this means I get more remake work from them.

HWG hwg-techniques mailing list archives, maintained by Webmasters @ IWA