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

[chrisw@wwa.com (Chris Williams)]

> 
> [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.

   It is not a fact. If the information *couldn't* be offered in proper
HTML, it would be a fact. It easily could have been, but wasn't.

> Some HTML users and designers choose to exile themselves from 
> mainstream developments in hypertext and hypermedia systems.

   The people breaking HTML are the *least* knowledgable users,
rather than the most. 

> 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.

   The W3 that just got steamrolled by Netscape?

> Yes, Burkhard can make the page more amenable.  Let's ask
> him to do that. 

   He could have from the very start, but didn't. The meta-content of
the web is the web. I'd wager that there are more pages about writing
web pages than almost any other topic. Why don't people read them,
or read the authoring newsgroups?

> I'll bet he will if shown how.  

   I lack your faith. I have tried every approach, and have been rebuffed
by the "well it looks good on Netscape" brigade.

> How bad can a guy be who dedicates his ISP service to Kate Bush?

   He can be as thoughtlessly cruel as any other human being.

> >   Hardly. Nothing about his page either:
> >
> >   A: Requires frames
> >   B: Cannot work in the <NOFRAMES> section.
> 
> So?  It's his art.

   Again, if it was an art page, this would be comprehensible. As
it is an information resource, it should be held to reasonable technical
standards.

   Furthermore...and I cannot stress this strongly enough, as it seems
to have completely escaped your attention...there is *nothing* about
adding *content* to the <NOFRAMES> section that would detract
from his "art" one iota. Explain how it would.

> >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.

   It's my business and living. I repair pages for corporations
that have been victimized by unskilled Netscape hacks. 

> >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?

   Non-sequiter. I create web sites. I have been on the web for a while.
Same as everyone else. I just happen to be more careful in my use of
the web than most.

>  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. 

    Boy, this part is from the ozone. You are working to ensure the future
of the web by supporting the (to use a phrase borrowed from an idiot)
"balkinization of the web"? The *current* structure of HTML works fine,
thank you very much, and will continue to do so as companies (like
Microsoft) discover that producing non-backwards compatible approachs
ill-serves their customers. 

[random content deleted]
 
> > 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.

    Ok, you've waved your techno-creds, I'll wave mine. I've been a
video engineer for 15 years. *None* of the "examples" you offered
lacked backwards compatibility *especially* color TV.

   *Every* US TV ever marketed can still receive *every* TV program
ever broadcast. Even when UHF was introduced, you could buy cheap
UHF tuners to stik on your old TV set. 

   Thanks so very much for proving my point. I was planning to offer
TV as a wonderful example of a backwards compatible standard.

   I'd like to know how automatic transmissions made all those manual
cars stop running, though.

>  Again, I see that Burkhard made an
> attempt, and it fell short of your expectations.  Fine.

    He made a page, and it fell short of HTML. "Attempt"? He made no
such thing. His <NOFRAMES> says: "Tough luck!"

[random retoric deleted]

> >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.

   Then you don't understand it. Use a speaking browser for a day.

> >> 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. 

    HTML 3.2 has a DTD. What possible use is an SGML instance without
a DTD? Yet Netscape *still* hasn't offered one. I dread looking at one
of your DTDs.

    "Open systems" are worthless if they are not accessible. 

> Get some computer science under your belt and understand
> what a user-defined schema is. 
  
    I'm in the middle of converting a large quantity of research
material to SGML. 

    I really don't understand where you're coming from. I'm on the
side of open information. Making information availavle to as many
as possible. You are defending the opposite. Prove me wrong, instead
of waving your diploma at me, ok?

> HTML is kiddie land.  That is
> why it is fun.  You don't have to design or think too hard.

   The web is the de facto global information system.

> 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.

   And?

> >  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.

   As I said, I've tried every tactic. *You* politely write to him and
tell him. He'll probably claim that reaching a mythical "75% of web
users" is good enough (as if 25% of any population can be completely
ignored.) 

> > 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.

   As much as I hate to say it ... *HUH*!?! 

   This is the haves callously ignoring the needs of the have nots.
   
   This is people with Pentiums and Power PCs marginalizing those with
286s and 68000s.

   This is snobbery, and I can think of no other word for it. Do you
have a better one?

> >  Providers of information resources have *more* responsibility, rather
> >  than less.
> 
> To whom?  This is entertainment; not scripture.

   It's Kate Bush Lyrics. Not scripture? IED might disagree.
 
> 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.

   "Trying" includes understanding the strengths and weaknesses of
the system. This person wasn't even trying.

> 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.

   If he had chosen to present information in a manner that didn't
explicitly include backward compatibility, you might have a point.

   The less said about Shockwave, the better.

> The web is just plumbing.

   It's so much more. You may have turned your back on the web in favor
of kludges like VRML (a mediocre solution in search of an undefined
problem), but I haven't.