Re: Netscape & New HTML

Dylan Northrup (
Fri, 21 Oct 1994 12:28:06 -0400 (EDT)

On Fri, 21 Oct 1994 wrote:

> > I've stated this myself a couple of times before. Nothing prevents
> > developers of WWW clients to support other document languages
> > explicitly like PostScript, PDF, TeX, etc.
> Why not just add the functionality on to HTML. For an HTML coder, it is
> much easier to learn a few more commands than to learn a whole new
> language (Besides, the mere thought of learning PostScript or TeX without
> having to is enough to make me have nightmares).
> And while we're at it, it's long disturbed me that, in addition to
> learning HTML, I had to learn to drive to get to work in the morning.
> Why not just add the functionality on to HTML? It's much easier to
> learn a few more commands like <p command=turn left> than to learn how
> to drive.

Yeah, but that'd mean you'd have to port your browser to yet another
platform. Besides, I already know how to drive (not that my passengers
would agree with me :-).

But seriously, HTML provides a low-bandwidth way to specify the
aproximate positions and layout of text/pictures. Using PostScript or
TeX or any other typesetting language increases the bandwidth by insane
amounts. Better to add options on to the existing low-bandwidth
solutions than to go for something that will clog the 'Net and hog the

I agree that there may be some things that are unnecessary (hell and
damnation upon <BLINK>) but needed/useful markups such as <center> and
<font> will be used. If they add something that people want and will
use, what's the problem?

* Dylan Northrup <> * PGP and Geek Code available *
*********************************************** via WWW and upon request *
* Will code HTML for food * KIBO #7 * <> *
Random Babylon 5 Quote:
"The sky was full of stars and every star an exploding ship -- one of ours."
-- Sinclair (about the Line), "The Gathering"