Re: Start here

At 01:31 PM 2/27/01 , Ted Temer wrote:
>Jim:
>
>I too would love to see the actual documentation to prove which browser
>needs a DTD. Like I said, I changed the default in my copy of FrontPage to
>reflect Fuzzy's "3.2"  but I freely admit, I can not see where it actually
>accomplished much of anything.

I can't help much with that one. Except to point out *again* the people the
browser manufacturers look to for basic functionality say it is REQUIRED.

Personally, I can not find a good reason to argue with them.


>
>On the other hand, it does not seem to have hurt anything either.
>

And that IS the point. It works. It works in MSIE. NN, OPREA and all the
rest - regardless of the version. Try that with a transitional DTD. It
doesn't matter which one.


>You said, in referring to my statement about FrontPage users setting the
>program to only use features that would work in both browsers:
>
>> I don't understand the either this or that mentality
>>that this passage evidences. You can design perfectly >acceptable sites
>using HTML 4.01
>> Transitional with some CSS1.
>>The only thing you would have to watch out
>> for is to keep the CSS1 usage down to what does
>>actually work in both
>> browsers, but with experience that comes easily enough.

I guess we have different definitions of "acceptable". Mine dictates: It
works for everyone. What you are calling acceptable INDISPUTABLY does not
meet that definition. I guess we can agree to disagree on that.


>
>That's exactly what happens when you set FrontPage for both browsers. There
>is nothing wrong with the experience you mention. The thing is  ...
>FrontPage has the "experience" of dozens of HTML programmers already built
>in. And unlike us, it never forgets.

No. In fact it doesn't have dozens of HTML programers experience in it.
What it has are Micro$oft paid and fed programmers that really couldn't
care less about ANYTHING expect profitability and operation in MSIE
browsers in it.

The advantage we have here is that despite the FACTS, you and everyone else
can still believe what they want about the "proper" use of HTML. The
machines can not. The INDISPUTABLE fact is that the use of validated
ratified code keeps browsers happy - ALL BROWSERS.

Now, if that ticks off developers and they want to scream and cry because
they do not have the knowledge/talent/ability to use anything except a
piece of software that can EASILY be proven to be severely flawed to
product pages, whether Front Page or any of the other WYSIWYG editors, that
is an issue. But it is not an issue that should lead anyone to the FALSE
impression that ANYTHING except ratified validated HTML *actually* works
reliably and predictably.


>
>The bottom line here is that we both are going for more or less the same
>thing and both methods work.

Prove it. Two simple words. I am COMPLETELY ready to document my position
right here and right now. And it COMPLETELY conflicts with that statement.
No. Both *do not* work (work as defined by "acceptable" above).


>
>"Academia" was my weak attempt of levity. I was simply referring to W3C as
>opposed to the "standards" already built in to WYSIWYG editors.

You mean the "let's make a profit at ANY cost" and "let Marketing handle
it" standards that IS Micro$oft? Oh. I'm excited. Wait, let me rearrange my
business to make is suck too! Really Ted. This is below you.


>
>In another thread that is running now, several people have expressed their
>alarm and discomfort that other web authors are already designing strictly
>for IE-4-5 and are forsaking other browsers.


You are not hearing it from me. The sounds you are hearing from this end
are relief. This is music to my ears. It means my shop will continue to be
swamped by businesses that were not smart enough look at the facts.

>
>I too share some of that alarm. However, as I mentioned a week or so ago,
>this movement exists and is becoming more popular as weeks go by. Because of
>commercial pressures, browser manufacturers are developing and IMPLEMENTING
>standards faster than W3C.

What commercial pressures would that be? The only commercial pressure I
have EVER heard is for the implementation and support of CSS. Yea, they are
doing a real good job of bowing to that commercial pressure alright.


>
>Unfortunately, many firms, committees and individuals are still spending far
>too much time complaining about Microsoft rather than taking care of
>business. As a result, Microsoft's products continue to gain exponentially
>in market share. Regardless of our concern, W3C does run the POSSIBLE risk
>of becoming overshadowed as the vast consumer world makes their inevitable
>decision.

Only because developers will not open their eyes and smell the coffee.
Think about this for a second:

How many fortune 500 companies CEO's would have to be SHOWN the bugs in NN6
before NN would start making some changes? Darned few. But instead, because
they have "this" piece of software they don't want to tell the boss: Look,
this is right and I can prove it. Leave me alone and call NN."

It is exactly the same mentality that caused a billboard to recently be put
up here in Tallahassee that said:

Guns Kill and Drugs Destroy.

When I first saw that, I was with an 8 year old kid. That kid looked up at
the billboard and said: "What do they mean? Guns can't kill, and drugs HELP
people. It is PEOPLE that kill and destroy using guns and drugs!"

Yea. An eight year old. That kid grasped personal responsibility. We should
too - for a change.


>
>And you can bet the farm that the consumers will make that decision based on
>features and ease of use and as a group, they could care less whether the
>"standard" is Microsoft or W3C. Just as long as it works and is easy to use.

BINGO ! Back to square one; Define "works" please, as we OBVIOUSLY have
radically different opinions of that definition.

>
>Who among us can say with certainty whether another five years MAY see
>Netscape, W3C, (and many of us), as statistically irrelevant as eight tracks
>and WordStar.

Well, I don't know about that. But I do know this: Put a 5 year old
RATIFIED dtd in your page and write to that standard. It works for EVERYONE
who visits. Put a 4.X transitional dtd in a web page and it will NOT work
for the MAJORITY of users who view the page.

*That* I know for a fact.

>
>Ironically, if this ever comes to pass, it would sure simplify our lives. At
>last we could forget all the fuss over code and DTD's and concentrate on
>content.

What's to fuss about? The only fussing that happens is when folks try to
use code that is KNOWN to be problematic. That is a matter of choice in my
opinion. Around this shop, operation of a web page is NEVER an issue.

>
>In fact, the FrontPage list I belong to, seems much closer to that point
>now. And rarely does the subject of persons not able to view their pages,
>ever come up.

Which is a fine testament to the sermon I have just lovingly administered.

If 2000 dairy farmers got together and told you it was safe to put your
hand in a vat of Nitric Acid as long as you were in zero gravity, would
you? Probably not. If a group of FP (or ANY WYSIWYG editor!) users got
together and talked not about function but content, I would give it EXACTLY
the same weight I would give that group of dairy farmers. 

That is a matter of simple common sense if you will take the time and
trouble to read the publicly accessible documentation currently available
on the Internet regarding the HTML. ALL these arguments that keep coming up
about elements not working only hold water if you IGNORE that documentation.

Fuzzy.
<making up for the silence>
______________________________________________________________
Captain F.M. O'Lary
webmaster(at)canopy.net
It's a biiiig mistake to allow any mechanical object to realize that you
are in a hurry.
------------------------------------------------------------------

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