Re: OT: Social responsibility when writing HTML

James Taylor <spam-block-@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Warning: This thread is seriously off-topic now.
> In fact, I'll change the subject to reflect this.


> Abigail <abigail@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>> Furthermore, I cannot imagine a "good, anticiapting programmer"
>> writing &lt; instead of '<' inside quotes for the "difficulties"
>> someone might have parsing HTML, and then leaving off the quotes.

> Which of the following techniques would *you* choose:

Some of your [snipped] examples have nothing to do HTML as such,
but just various things in webpages.

> I could probably go on to fill a book with a list of these
> sort of choices, but then I'm an experienced web developer
> with sufficient clue. The vast majority of kiddie web
> deeziners out there would be completely oblivious to the
> existence of a choice, and anyway would pick (a) from every
> selection just because it's the newest wizzy technology that
> gives them the maximum scope for creativity, "so it *has* to
> be the right choice doesn't it". It would never even occur

That is their problem... as their clients may soon realise.

> to them that using minimal new technology to achieve their
> goals is better than using the maximally new and fragile
> technique. Such deeziners have little understanding of what
> they're doing (beyond the use of whatever wysiwyg editor
> they're using) and they care even less about social niceties,
> such as ensuring accessibility to the widest audience,
> keeping their HTML and graphics small, neat and efficient
> for the benefit dial-up modem users, web caches, etc, or
> allowing people to view the site on any browser, at any font
> size, or in any window size. They don't care about allowing
> people (or bots) to automatically crawl and scrape the site,
> in fact they probably think that's a *bad* thing and would
> prefer everyone to enter their site only from the front page
> so they can throw the right combination of popup advertising
> at the hapless suckers!

> Not only does the appallingly fragile construction of most
> websites reduce the general quality of the web, but it also
> imposes a pressure of extinction on minority browsers and
> platforms that don't have sufficient market share and
> financial muscle to keep up with the grubby complexity that
> results from this.

Is that not a reason to keep to standards?

> Furthermore, it raises the barrier for
> entry to anyone wishing to write their own browser, crawler,
> or other web client. Despite being a competent Linux user
> and fan, I still do the majority of my work on an alternative
> platform (RISC OS) because its GUI usability *completely*
> outclasses anything available on Linux. (Of course, I have
> it networked to my Linux box for the best of both worlds.)
> Alternative platforms have much to offer and, just as we
> should look after the bio-diversity of the rainforest, we
> should avoid needlessly killing off computing platforms in a
> mindless lust for the latest kewl thing, otherwise we'll
> look back and wonder why we didn't see it coming when some
> megacorp owns the world and there are no freedoms left.

Which computing platforms are being killed off? Hardly Solaris -
I have both Sparc and Intel editions at home and they run quite
well without regard to any HTML standard. HP-UX? A system I would
run Oracle on, not a web browser.

> So you see, you might think it's a small thing, but when I
> see someone advocating the use of fragile markup (needlessly)
> in the full knowledge that some browsers won't cope with it
> and suggesting that browsers should just get fixed and
> upgraded, I hope you now see why I oppose this socially
> harmful and myopic attitude as a matter of utmost principle.

No. If a browser cannot cope with good markup - it is the
fault of the browser. Being able to cope with bad markup is
a plus sign.

I design the webpages from my own site (no, I am not going to
make a plug for it as it would be of little interest to anyone)
to be Lynx viewable - except those containing photographs.

Axel


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Simple question ??
    ... A web page is basically an HTML document. ... a technology that, at the most basic level, delivers HTML to a web browser. ... Internet Explorer, for example, can display Word documents, ... file format to a browser in its native state. ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.aspnet)
  • Re: Toward WYSIWYG Web Page Authoring
    ... HTML and the web browser, ... Of course, even at the time of the first GUIs for developing HTML, WYSIWYG ... The best answer has emerged in the form of XML. ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.aspnet)
  • Re: Mulberry gone, now what?
    ... > browsers is about reading broken HTML. ... It's easier for a browser to be backwards ... bear on web developers ("My son at college says the page looks different ...
    (comp.mail.imap)
  • Re: Toward WYSIWYG Web Page Authoring
    ... >> WYSIWYG Web page development capability on the Web - ever? ... > HTML and the web browser, ... > browser being the only web browser in existence at the time. ... The best answer has emerged in the form of XML. ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.aspnet)
  • Re: Toward WYSIWYG Web Page Authoring
    ... >> HTML and the web browser, ... >> browser being the only web browser in existence at the time. ... >> WYSIWYG was already an impossible goal. ... The best answer has emerged in the form of XML. ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.aspnet)