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

[Len Bullard <cbullard@HiWAAY.net>]

[Chris W.]

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

> >These pages are only visible with frames browsers!
> >Use Netscape 2.0 or higher, Microsoft Explorer 3.0 or Oracle Power Browser 1.0

I don't read this as gloating.  It is the fact, nothing more.
Some HTML users and designers choose to exile themselves from
mainstream developments in hypertext and hypermedia systems.
As a result, they are now caught in the cross fire between
commercial competitors.  That this was going to happen
was obvious from the beginning.  Yes, the user is the loser
here, but don't complain to the authors.  Complain to the W3C.

Yes, Burkhard can make the page more amenable.  Let's ask
him to do that.  I'll bet he will if shown how.  How
bad can a guy be who dedicates his ISP service to Kate Bush?

>   Hardly. Nothing about his page either:
>
>   A: Requires frames
>   B: Cannot work in the <NOFRAMES> section.

So?  It's his art.  Cathy Bush does not require
48 tracks of analog digital recording.
She does not have to put out a compact disc when
there are still many very good vinyl systems.
None of this is necessary.  It is the way and the
medium in which they choose to express themselves.
She could prove she loves us with a tour.  I won't
give her an F- if she doesn't.  I'll just go on
whining about it.

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

Your call.  Others agree.  I don't.  The Web is not my religion.

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

Hmm.  Are you currently providing browsers, parsers, software products
of any kind to the WWW market?  I use the web daily, I do the
other things, and happen to be one of the people working hard
to ensure that the future Internet infrastructures are not so
fragile as to crack this easily.  So, whose idea is this
you are espousing?  Not mine.  I understand and have always
understood that the WWW was a weak design that would be
replaced by superior commercial technology.  That is happening.
Can't be stopped now.  No need to either.  Do you think Java
is going to make your life easier, your pages better, your
message more effective?  When all the content is provided
by programmers, will it be better?

> 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.

So was the introduction of the compact disc, the automatic transmission,
color TV broadcasting (which was delayed for a decade until the 
standards
were in place), and on and on.  Again, I see that Burkhard made an
attempt, and it fell short of your expectations.  Fine.  The Dreaming
sucks as a commercial album, but it sure was a stretch for the girl.
I like HOL a lot better.  Suspended in Gaffa makes my sheltie howl.

Are you the engineer who stood at Paul McCartney's side at EMI
and said, "no paul, you can't use that much bass in the
mix.  It might make needles jump.."  Everybody has rules...
somebody gets beyond them, art and practice improve.

>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.

Nice try but no soap, Chris.  I lived under American apartheid.
There is nothing you can tell me about that. I was there for
the riots, and there when the churches made the peace.  I
live in a black neighborhood today. I am there
everyday living in it.  My children are in the front yard
playing with their black friends.  They will never be beaten as I
was for that.  So, don't try this one.  No guilt here.

>> Who rules?  The author chose.  Fine.  Gad.

>  ...and you author SGML?!?

Yes, and design document type definitions, and stylesheets, and sit on
committees, and all the other nine yards.  There is a lot more
freedom of information, and a lot more real dedication to the
openness of systems on that side of the tracks than yours.
Get some computer science under your belt and understand
what a user-defined schema is.  HTML is kiddie land.  That is
why it is fun.  You don't have to design or think too hard.
But it is also the most inflexible way possible to design
for information usage.  Go to www.techno.com and look for the
descriptions of the Third International HyTime Conference.
There is a description of me there somewhere.

>  See above. Politeness is hard to practice in the face of such
>  callousness.

No.  It is more important to do it then. That's when it counts.
That's when it shows class.  That's when it is polite.

> People with less computer power than you are still people.

So are people with more.  So are people with chevrolets and so
are people with bentleys.  So?  The Dreaming still sucks as
a commercial album; it is an artistic masterpiece.

>  Providers of information resources have *more* responsibility, rather
>  than less.

To whom?  This is entertainment; not scripture.

My policy is different from yours.  I have worked in the field
a long time and understand the range of systems.  I applaud
each Kate page that comes up, help the author if they desire
help, offer anything they want from my page if they desire
it.  All that is important is that they try.

If they choose frames, VRML, Shockwave (which is a helluva lot
slower, requires a proprietary format, etc), or just want
to post a "Hey Kate, I love you" note, I'm for it.

The web is just plumbing.

len