16 Aug
2001
16 Aug
'01
8:18 p.m.
HTML isn't flimsy as a language goes.. The problem is
the wack intrepreters. Each does something different,
especially in the case of a broken document..
(Not starting a browser flamewar.. No, I'm not.
Really. No flames. Shaddup already!.)
Jim
HTML is no programming language, silly. You'd learn more by running a
Cardiac,
and besides, HTML is so flimsy that it can never be predicted in any
whatsoever.
--
En ligne avec Thor 2.6a.
Die Zeit kommt aus der Zukunft, die nicht existiert, in die
Gegenwart, die keine Dauer hat, und geht in die Vergangenheit,
die aufgehort hat, zu bestehen.
--- Augustinus (Rom. Kirchenlehrer, 354-430 n. Chr.)
17 Aug
17 Aug
12:34 a.m.
HTML isn't flimsy as a language goes.. The problem
is
the wack intrepreters. Each does something different,
especially in the case of a broken document..
Like they did with BASIC, MS took an already established
language, twisted it to their liking and got people using their
versions. It sucks having to check all my HTML code in various
browsers to make sure it's still viewable on all.
Jeff
--
Home of the TRS-80 Model 2000 FAQ File
http://www.cchaven.com
http://www.geocities.com/siliconvalley/lakes/6757
5:36 a.m.
Jeff Hellige skrev:
>HTML isn't flimsy as a language goes.. The
problem is
>the wack intrepreters. Each does something different,
>especially in the case of a broken document..
Like they did with BASIC, MS took an already
established
language, twisted it to their liking and got people using their
versions. It sucks having to check all my HTML code in various
browsers to make sure it's still viewable on all.
The real crook behind this is none other than Marc Andreesen. He was the first
to twist HTML into a sealed architecture for his own purposes. He's really the
one who should be hung, and Netscape is really the Microsoft of the net.
--
En ligne avec Thor 2.6a.
5:34 a.m.
Jim Tuck wrote at the bloody top:
HTML isn't flimsy as a language goes.. The problem
is
the wack intrepreters. Each does something different,
especially in the case of a broken document..
Well, the point of HTML is that there is no set rendering style, but that is
also a stumbling point for the beginners. The wacky interpreters are the
essence of HTML.
[quoted .sig snipped]
--
En ligne avec Thor 2.6a.
I use OpenBSD 'coz it has a cool blowfish logo. The other BSDs look satanic.
- Anonymous Coward
18 Aug
18 Aug
6:33 a.m.
Jim Tuck wrote:
At 01:18 AM 8/17/01 -0400, you wrote:
HTML isn't flimsy as a language goes.. The problem
is
the wack intrepreters. Each does something different,
especially in the case of a broken document..
(Not starting a browser flamewar.. No, I'm not.
Really. No flames. Shaddup already!.)
Jim
I've always wondered why html was not originally conceived
say, as a package extension for TeX; each browser would run TeX,
load the html doc with locally defined screen (i.e. paper) size
parms and output a dvi file that would be rendered on the screen...
That would have made the web look so much better...
carlos.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos E. Murillo-Sanchez carlos_murillo(a)nospammers.ieee.org
9:25 a.m.
At 11:33 AM 8/18/2001 -0400, you wrote:
I've always wondered why html was not originally
conceived
say, as a package extension for TeX; each browser would run TeX,
load the html doc with locally defined screen (i.e. paper) size
parms and output a dvi file that would be rendered on the screen...
That would have made the web look so much better...
Isn't that basically the idea of display Postscript? Whatever
happened to that?
GZ
Gordon Zaft
zaft(a)azstarnet.com
8370
days inactive
8371
days old
6 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
cmurillo＠emtelsa.multi.net.co -
jhellige＠earthlink.net -
optimus＠canit.se -
technos＠nerdland.org -
zaft＠azstarnet.com