re: Kate Pages or How We Beat the Authors into the Will Of Gaffa

[chrisw@wwa.com (Chris Williams)]

Len Bullard <cbullard@HiWAAY.net> writes:
> 
> >Burkhard has included <noframes> and _top attributes.
> 
> >well, this is what is in the <noframes> tag:
>                                        
> >                      KATE BUSH PAGE OF BURKHARD SIEDHOFF
> >
> 
> Yes, but he used it.  That's a start.

   The <NOFRAMES> tag exists to offer the content to people using
non-frames browsers - not to gloat about the cool browser you are
using. 

> >Kate Bush Page - content: Kate Bush Gallery, Kate Bush CDs, Kate Bush
> >collection, Offered and wanted, Factsheet, The Kick Inside, Lionheart, Never
> >For Ever, The Dreaming, Hounds of Love, The Whole Story, The Sensual World,
> >This Woman's Work, The Red Shoes
> >These pages are only visible with frames browsers!
> >Use Netscape 2.0 or higher, Microsoft Explorer 3.0 or Oracle Power Browser 1.0
> 
> And he told you what to expect. Everyone out there is extending
> HTML. The HTML working group has apparently gone to hell, and
> the ensuing knife fight has no rules.  At least he got a page
> up and it is about Kate.  The bloody webReligion_HTMLisHoly 
> position just makes us ducks on an interstate.  The KateWorlds
> are now going to be in four new multimedia books including
> one in Japan.  Hooray.  But for my purposes, this is working
> very nicely.  Call that selfish or anything you like, but
> every Kate page, regardless of a WebNazi deciding
> it sucks or belongs in the "Extra" pages section is a
> prize for Cathy Bush.  Suits me fine.

   Hardly. Nothing about his page either:

   A: Requires frames
   B: Cannot work in the <NOFRAMES> section.

   There is good frame design and bad. This fits into the "bad" section.

  The whole idea is to push the limits of the web *without* breaking it.

  Not offering the content to those who either don't want, or cannot 
afford to upgrade to equipment able to support, frames is snobbery of the 
*worst* kind. Worse than the "seperate but equal" water fountians in the 
American south of the 1950's. Not even a "coloreds only". Nope, no water 
at all, unless you want to bleach your skin.

> >which is hardly informative for someone looking for a "great KaTe
> >page".
> 
> Who rules?  The author chose.  Fine.  Gad. 

  ...and you author SGML?!?
 
> >What else do the frame-impaired require?
> 
> >the least he could do was put the html from kate012.htm into <noframes>
> >so we don't have to dig through his source file to find the real main
> >page's location.
> 
> Good suggestion.  Let's politely request that and see
> what happens.  If we beat these people up for doing a
> *good thing*, how the blazes will we get them to 
> keep going?  A little sugar in the tea, please.

   See above. Politeness is hard to practice in the face of such
callousness. People with less computer power than you are still people.
  
  Providers of information resources have *more* responsibility, rather
than less.