In message <199407010007.AA26741@kauri.vuw.ac.nz>,
Nathan.Torkington@vuw.ac.nz wrote:
> Ye gods, at what point did I suggest replacing HTML in all its various
> incarnations?
>I'm only suggesting RTF for the publishing folks [...]
I hope you don't imagine that a large number of publishers are
really interested in RTF? TeX maybe.. :-) (yes that as a joke)
Then Chris Lilley writes:
>On the other hand, looking at the hoops people have put themselves through to
>try and use HTML for graphic page design, it is apparent to me that a
>significant proportion of Web authors want control over layout and appearance.
[...]
>To see the population I am referring to, look at any web pages which
>use HTML to control layout rather than logical structure. Any page
>that uses inline images for things other than for Figures - for
>icons, logos, banner headlines, bullet points and other layout items.
>Any page that uses different Hn to achieve different point sizes. Any
>page that uses UL without any LI, for indenting. Any page that uses
>HR. And so on.
>
>All these people are trying to do some form of page layout, graphic
>design, call it what you will.
The whole point is simply this: can you give me one simple formatting
system that will suffice for every display device in the world
(including a voice terminal). I think not. One of the original
mistakes with the WWW was that HTML was specified as a formatting
system rather than as a structuring system, thereby bullding this
reliance upon display features that are both browser and version
specific. What we really need is a system for defining document
structure, and a way to define (possibly, even probably, device or
browser specific) stylesheets. Anything else is simply trying to play
the role of god in a world made by, and for, men.