Christopher Jahn wrote:
>
> And it came to pass that Stephen Moehle wrote:
>
> >Steve Chapel wrote:
> >
> >> "Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> >> message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>
> >>> Mark Bitterling wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Braden, it IS the web developers fault when they develop
> >>>> non-standard
> >>>
> >> HTML
> >>
> >>>> web sites.
> >>>>
> >>>> Braden McDaniel wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Gervase
> >>>>> Markham"
> >>>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> It doesn't work? The two-facedness of the web developer
> >>>>>> community is amazing. "Standards!" they cry. "We only
> >>>>>> want to write stuff once!"
> >>>>>
> >> they
> >>
> >>>>>> cry. We give them standards, and then they moan that
> >>>>>> their
> >>>>>
> >> non-standard
> >>
> >>>>>> stuff doesn't work any more.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> That's the spirit. Blame the customers. It must be their
> >>>>> fault.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Braden
> >>>>
> >>> Okay I am a Very ignorant Websurfer that been on internet
> >>> since 2400K modems (a Practical Peripherals model that was
> >>> 2400K data / 9600K fax)
> >>>
> >>> What advantages did using layers on Web Pages have and
> >>> why is using Layers and Layer tags so not standards like
> >>> now.
> >>>
> >>> Why is doing anything simple so non-standards like and
> >>> sloppy.
> >>>
> >>> Its seems like something so easy, and would make buildng a
> >>> Website faster increases efficiency.
> >>>
> >>> By building anything now by going by a very strict set of
> >>> Standards your slowing down efficiency and driving up the
> >>> cost of building a site.
> >>>
> >>> Its like strictly down to a point and turning a corner and
> >>> walking again takes a certain amount of time. When you
> >>> could walk diagonally to the same point and save tons
> >>> time.
> >>>
> >>> Am I missing something.
> >>>
> >>> Seems like all these fancy standards is just to make web
> >>> designers lives a pain.
> >>>
> >>> Your making Standards strictly because it looks great on
> >>> paper. (Probably some PHD came up with the stanadrds.)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Whoa! It's hard to know where to start with this. :-)
> >>
> >> How do you think your 2400 baud modem worked with other
> >> modems? Modem standards.
> >> How are you able to communicate to us through this
> >> newsgroup? NNTP standards.
> >> How are you able to connect to the internet at all? TCP/IP
> >> standards. How are you able to watch TV? Television
> >> broadcasting standards. How are you able to use a phone and
> >> call anyone in the world? Telephone standards.
> >>
> >> Yeah! All those fancy standards designed by some stuffy
> >> Ph.D.'s really makes all our lives one huge pain, huh!
> >
> >I think some of your examples actually tend to make Philip's
> >point:
>
> No, you'r just not looking in the right places;
>
> >My 56k modem can still talk to a 2400 baud modem
>
> But my cable modem can't.
>
> >IPv6 and IPv4 can coexist
> >Existing B&W TVs could recieve color signals when color TV
> >was introduced and color TVs could recieve B&W signals.
>
> But there was a lot of debate about that, and it nearly ddin't
> happen that way.
>
> For a time, there were three different technologies for color
> broadcast in the USA, and none of them worked with one another,
> and only one worked with b&w. Europe and the US are only now
> coming to terms on such broadcast standards - you'll find that
> your new Sony from Circuit City won't work in London, or Paris.
>
> >The introduction of touch-tone phones did not require
> >everyone to throw out existing rotary-dial phones.
>
> But the introduction of rotary dial phones caused everyone to
> replace the phones that required an operator to make your
> connection.
>
> >NN6 and Mozilla cannot handle HTML designed for earlier
> >versions of the browser.
> >Unlike many standards, there is no backwards compatibility
> >here. And layers is a standard.
>
> And I can't find blank Beta tapes, either. Or a player for my
> 8tracks. Or leaded gas.
>
> It may not be a W3C
> >sanctioned standard, but it is Netsape's standard. They
> >convinced a lot of people to use it, and now all those people
> >who were suckered into using it are accused of being
> >two-faced and are being told to f*** off.
>
> Those same people had over two years of warning that it was
> being tossed. Netscape announce with the release of
> Communicator 4.7 that it would be the last browser to support
> proprietary tags.
>
> >
> >I think it is true that everyone only wants to write
> >something once. No one wants to have to write it for every
> >browser in existence which is why standards are good. At the
> >same time, no one wants to rewrite everything because someone
> >decided to change the rules, which is why backwards
> >compatibility is good.
>
> And I still can't buy blank tapes for my Beta or 8track.
>
> But I finally sold my Torino with the 350 Cleveland engine.
>
> --
> }:-) Christopher Jahn
> {:-( Dionysian Reveler
>
> To reply: xjahnATyahooDOTcom
All of this is well and good the question hasn't been answered what
exactly to do layers do why tey are so easy to do and why because they
were so easy to do did W3C decide they were to easy and therefore
shouldn't be used?
I'm still dense. And really want to learn.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip M. Jones, CET |MEMBER:VPEA (LIFE) ETA-I, NESDA,ISCET, Sterling
616 Liberty Street |Who's Who. PHONE:540-632-5045, FAX:540-632-0868
Martinsville Va 24112-1809|[EMAIL PROTECTED], ICQ11269732, AIM pjonescet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
If it's "fixed", don't "break it"!
