Re: Whoah Len, hold on there (Re: Kate Pages or...

[Len Bullard <cbullard@HiWAAY.net>]

Chris Williams wrote:
> 
> Asking for changes in exchange for a link has *never* been considered.
> Every Kate page that can be found will be listed. Personally I'm a
> bit offended at the suggestion. That would be *completely* contrary
> to the spirit of the web.

Don't take offense at negotiating cooperation.  Asking for a page change to 
be part of a link community is done every day.  I just spent the better
part of two days reworking the Talosian Spaceport so it 
would be viewable on another browser.  People on many pages 
request links for links;  it's actually policy in some
corporations to request adjustments to receive that. Most 
communities have some policy or another.

>    Pages that are actually *part* of Gaffaweb, that is in the /gaffa
> directory of it's home machine, conform to agreed on standards. This
> was all hashed out early on, by a desire among the participants to
> make this information available to everyone. I have been urging
> everyone to follow standards to assure that the information is
> widely available, but my opinion carries no more weight than anyone
> elses'

That is good.  I accept what you say.  As Vickie asks, we can 
leave Gaffa out of this.
 
>    Face it...you are defending the indefensible. I repeat,
> making these pages accessible to all would take a *tiny*
> amount of time, and would have great benefits.

Oh, I agree making the change would be easy.  I have
received a reply from it's author: he declines to
make the change.  I'll try again.  Great benefits?
Most of his information is on other easily located 
pages.
 
>    You are pretending that cutting the index information from
> one page and pasting it into another is some sort of difficult
> task. You know as well as I do that it wouldn't take more than
> 5 minutes even using ED.

No I am not.  I am saying it might not be something the
author wishes.  I am saying that lambasting him in public 
for not doing that is not helping your cause or his.
 
> >The rest of this is not a response to Vickie.
> >The "you" is plural, not aimed at individuals
> >unless cited.
> 
>    I'll take "you", in this case as refering to me, ok?

As you wish.  I believe woj and stev0 launched volleys
as well.  Vickie's post is correct, if somewhat pointed.

> Stev0 took the time to review every Kate page
> he could find. 

Yes.  He savaged some of them for no good reason
I can understand.  But those are his reactions.
I think they have no place in a major Kate Bush
site, but that is up to the maintainers of that site.

>Vickie took this and made it into a
> web page. He has grouped them into "must see" and
> "if you have the time" pages. But if you bother to check
> Vickie's pages, you'll find that it starts with an uncommented
> list of links. Stev0's review pages are below.

Yes.  I did read it and the Happy Rhodes page as well
last week. I noted her comment about "frames" and tutorials 
with "big words".  I offered to help.  She took that
badly.  It wasn't meant to be an insult.  I get a
few requests everyday for help, and offer it if
it appears someone is trying to learn.  She assures
me she has already mastered the subject.  Selah.
 
> Things exist as they do because various people took
> it upon themselves to do those things. No one had
> reviewed all the Kate Bush web pages until Stev0, thus
> his reviews appear on Vickie's page. Vickie has been
> working on Gaffaweb non-stop for the last three months,

And it will reflect that devotion, no doubt. A lot of
web communities work that way. 

> and included Stev0's reviews, because they are a
> very good information resource.

That is your call.  An annotated link is considered 
a good resource too.
 
> Everything on Gaffaweb exists because someone is actually
> doing the work. If I recall, you turned your nose up at
> participating quite some time ago, possibly because it wasn't
> going to feature your beloved VRML.

You're reaching again, Chris.  I did not know about it
until recently.  I inquired, found out most of the work
was done, or being completed.  I declined for exactly the
reason I stated:  too many cooks.  That near completion,
it would not have helped a project I have high hopes for.  That
is what I said and what I meant.  I also offered to
send any materials from my site requested.  When I
started the VRML kate site, I asked for help on this list, 
received some, and offered to teach the techniques to anyone
on the list that wished to learn.  That offer stands 
as does the invitation to introduce you to the
SGML community at the upcoming conference.  If that
is being snobbish, well, we grew up in different royal courts.
 
>    Fine. You page *is* listed.

Thank you.  Since I have offended it's authors,
please remove it.  It's authors control its
content and the links.  That is the "spirit of
the web" as I understand it. If you wish, I will
not insert a link to Vickie's page as I am going to 
for Burkhard and have for Jon.  Unless you protest, 
I will.
 
>    I agree with Stev0 sometimes, disagree others. He chose
> to do this, Vickie chose to include it (which she did *long*
> before her page was included) and it serves as a very useful
> guide to the pages.

See above.
 
>    Be honest. Do you think anyone not using a Reality Engine
> equipped SGI via a T-1 is going to use a VRML guide to Kate
> as their primary resource?

No, just as no one with a black and white
set could see color television.  They had to buy a new TV.
It isn't that bad.  A VRML page is just as fast
as a page with a big imagemap on it.  We can see both;
but sometimes, it ain't worth the wait. Sometimes, it is.

I am not asking VRML to be used as a primary resource.  It
is at best, an entertaining one, just as a video is for rock.
Those things I cited were the design goals of its creators. 
Actually, I'm in the camp that thinks 3D is inefficient
as an interface on the Internet. As a primary hypermedia
hub, it can be excellent.  This is all a matter of current 
speculation and experimentation, and significant investment
by people from SGI on down to J Gwinner, a retired Marine
Major trying to launch a company.
 
> I guess I'll have to keep repeating this until you understand
> it.
> 
>    *NO ONE*, especially ME is doing ANYTHING to "stop the
> development" of anything. Again, there is *nothing* about
> making a page HTML compliant and Lynx-friendly that detracts
> from also "pushing the envelope".

Use of extensions or plugins not supported by the software
will.  But just because of that, we shouldn't avoid them.
 
>    The envelope, BTW, is not VRML or Frames. It is StyleSheets,
> a wonderful example of how to push the design and usability of
> the web forward with complete backwards compatibility.

CSS, DSSSL or FOSI?   Come to the SGML on the Web conference next month 
and discuss it with the people who developed all of these.
They don't agree either, but they are working toward a common 
solution.  We've had stylesheet systems for SGML for quite 
awhile.  We needed an international standard.  Now we have 
one called Document Style Semantics and Specification Languages.
HTML has CSS.  The DoD has FOSI.
 
Ever tried to put a MIL-PRF-28001 instance on a Web browser?
Ever tried to keep an illustrated parts breakdown figure set 
physically adjacent to a web page (they are series indentured
and Figure numbered)?  Ever try to put a CALS table in 
a Web page?  Backward compatibility is a big issue in 
SGML.  It wasn't in HTML.  That's the dilemma.

> After seeing how poorly VRML performed on the SGI Indy's
> at Siggraph, and how poorly it performs on the Intergraph
> I use every day, I came to that conclusion.

Like HTML, to build a fast language for transport on the 
Internet, it can't do much that is really complicated, or the load
time is slow.  That's the Internet:  pushing a television
signal through a telegraph wire.  That's not news.  I
don't know which models you are looking at or which
browsers.  Some VRML is quite fast.  It depends on 
size, use of light nodes, how many indexed face sets you use,
etc.

An Intergraph station? Neat.  Which model?  I worked
for their nucleus graphics group in the early 
eighties.  Great technology.
 
>    VRML was invented because of graphics cards with
> high speed 3D polygon rendering. The rationalization
> for it was invented afterwards to justify budgets.

No.  Mark Pesce, Gavin Bell, and Tony Parisi were big 
fans of Gibson's Neuromancer.  Mark was a network 
engineer and he and Tony did the first system on their
on nickel.  They met Gavin and Gavin and others persuaded
SGI to release a subset of Open Inventor.  A list was
started with Mark as the moderator.  It was put together 
by Brian Behlendorf and paid for by Wired.  Still is.  The 
list debated long and loud, and finally selected the SGI offer.  The
details were hammered out, VRML 1.0 was born, and several
large and small companies developed buggy but functional
browsers.  One of these from Paperinc, a small Woodstock
New York startup produced WebFX which was bought by 
Netscape and became Live3D.  The 2.0 version of the language,
was developed with participation from 65 companies and 
thousands of interested netizens.  There is still a lot
of work to do, but the 1.0 worlds are stable and a
community of engineers and artists are supporting it
with worlds.

I didn't believe it could be done; but I'm glad I
watched as they proved me wrong.  It's glorious good fun.

The 3D cards to support VRML have only just appeared.

>   Perhaps at this year's Siggraph I'll finally see a
> VRML interface that will impress me.

Have a good time there.  Wish I could be there.
 
>    As far as I can tell, my goals and the W3C's goals
> are in perfect harmony. I want to ensure that all information
> is available.
> 
>    To paraphrase: "Information wants to be freely available".

Anthropomorphism.  The best anyone has been able to determine,
only people want that.  And many don't.  I want information 
to be accessible to as many as desire it, but there are lots
of kinds of information, and some of it best never be on the
WWW.  What the information "wants" is irrelevant.

> This is ridiculous. Not once, in all this verbige
> have you even attempted to show how "my goals" restrain
> the development of the web. Not once.

Your goals do not.  Your methods can. Not once in all
this caterwauling have you understood that I have
said beating people for using the tools they have
is not helping the web.  You want to beat them for
the content, go ahead.  Fair game.  If someone
takes a picture of Kate's face and pastes it on 
Tori Amos's naked torso, I might find that objectionable,
particularly if they leave the pig's suckling marks.

 >    How does urging people to add *useful* text to the
> <NOFRAMES> section of their web page detract from the
> development of the web?

It does not.
 
>    How does adding ALT= attributes to the <IMG> element
> detract from the development of the web?

It does not.
 
>    How does using nested tables to assure graceful degradation
> on non-table browsers detract from the development of the web?

The table model used in HTML was developed after it was stated
by its creators they could "do a better job" than the existing
CALS table, a well-standardized model with wide support.  
They did not.  They just created one that was
different and screwed the backward compatibility of browsers
not based on their designs.  I have been using a stylesheet
driven browser for about six years, and was the individual
responsible for seeing that it's DoD sibling was released
to the world for free.  It is called IADS. We will be releasing 
MID in the same way. While HTML compatibility was not a
high priority for MID, we made sure it was there.
 
> You, on the other hand find yourself in the position of defending
> *bad* HTML, and poor interface design. 

No.  I'm defending the right of the author to determine the disposition
of his own creation and to be free of misguided and hostile criticism.  

> My goal harms no one, and
> attempts to ensure that the web is available for everyone.

That is a good goal. Have you decided to raise funds for
free ISP service, or are you running for Congress to legislate 
that?  Software costs too.  Right now, major industries and 
universities are bearing the cost of your "free" information.  
Do you think the cable company is going to be as generous?

Unless we develop content they wish to deliver and for which
they can charge a fee, the Internet will be replaced by a 
different and entirely private service in which the cost
of receiving content funds the development of infrastructure.  
That information is owned.  Always was.  Fact.  HTML is not
the language of choice for this.

The computers by which we are flaming at the moment are owned.
The Sprint backbone is owned.  The ISPs aren't paying a tenth 
of the actual costs.  Developments like Cool Talk eat into
the profits of the corporations such as AT&T who do own 
the infrastructure and support it with higher rates to
commercial customers.
 
>    Am I to assume that "paying the price" for the imformation
> means buying eyes for the blind? Because that's the way I read
> what you said.

Sometimes that is indeed the case.  But the blunt facts are, 
someone does pay for all of these things.  Read what you want 
the way you want too; even for the blind, all information is not 
best represented in HTML, and nothing stops us from adopting the
web conventions for the physically impaired for other languages.
A work item on a CALS special projects group includes the use
of VRML in IETMs to aid these groups.
 
>    FACT: There are no frames-capable speaking browsers for use
> by the blind.

Write to Netscape or build a module.
 
>    FACT: There are no frames-capable Lynx-style browsers.

Write to Netscape or build a module.
 
>    "Pay the price"?!? What a contemptible snob you are.

Ok.  Your mother wears silk underwear.  Likes it too.
You learned to debate from Jorn Barger, I take it?
 
>    I must repeat: Nothing I urge detracts from the design of the
> page ONE IOTA. If you continue to ignore that fact, I must assume
> that your understanding of HTML is, in spite of all your claims,
> very weak.

Ok.  Nothing keeps a web surfer from hitting Burkhard's
page and switching to another if they cannot read it.
That is what is neat about the Internet.  Let me repeat;
I have asked the author politely about it.  Move on.
 
> >4.  Bashing a newbie for honest effort because
> >your own tastes or resources aren't satisfied.
> 
> It was bad HTML. It was not visible on many browers. If
> I were to assign a rating systems to page design, no "Frames
> Only" page could possible score higher than a 50 out of 100.
> Why? Simply because, even by the most generous estimates,
> not more than 50% of the viewers could even *read* the pages.

Viewers or users?  The estimate is that 70% of the instances 
in use are frames-enabled. It is Burkhard's decision to make.

Why do you think HotMetal suppports frames? 
Before you answer, know this:  the same man
that made that possible contributed a lot to HTML
for the blind, and the SGML cause in general.  He worked
himself quite literally to death doing that.  
But he fought the efforts of individuals in the HTML
community and his company to reinvent when it screwed 
over every preexisting SGML system.  

So, take your backward compatibility arguments and go 
elsewhere.  You don't know the history of the systems,
or the consequences of current developments.  That is
not a dig, Chris.  You have bought into
the Webbiness of it all, and it is not all there is to 
the Internet and hypermedia, now, in the past, and 
most certainly, not in the future.  There is much to
be done.  There are many good and earnest people 
working toward that whose names you do not know, and
whose contributions and sacrifices you cannot begin to 
guess.  I am in agreement with your goals, but not 
your method.
  
> Kate has never released any music that cannot be heard
> by everyone with hearing, or a video that cannot be seen
> by everyone with sight. 

Not my point. My point was that experimentation improves
art both with the style and the technology.  The widest
method of dissemination is airplay and touring.  She
politely and for her own reasons does not seem to care 
for either.  Is she "bad"?  No she is very determined
to go her own way.  It is one of the things I admire most.

I repeat:  that experimentation has to be done in 
real time on the web, or the goals you seek will not
be achieved.  If someone doesn't do it as well as you 
like, help them or move on.

> If she had released "The Line, The
> Cross and The Curve" in 3D only, you might have some small
> justification for your obsessive attempts to drag her into your
> diminshingly rational arguments.

You can do this without being insulting. That is what I cannot
understand: that you value bytes on a computer over
the human heart or human smile.

Burkhard did well for his first attempt.  May all of yours
be successful also.

len