Braden McDaniel wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Mark Anderson"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T." wrote:
> >>
> >> 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.
> >
> > The W3C was producing the HTML 4.0 spec at about the same time Netscape
> > shipped 4.0. Netscape invented layers originally because there *was* no
> > standard at the time (HTML 4.0 didn't come out until 4 months or so
> > after the release of Communicator 4.0).
>
> Bzzzt. HTML 4.0 has nothing to do with layers. The document you're
> looking for is the CSS Positioning draft:
>
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/WD-positioning-970130.html>
>
> This was the precursor to the positioning properties in CSS2.
Well, yes, I know that. But CSS2 wasn't out at the same time, too.
> > When they figured out that the
> > W3C was headed a different direction, they deprecated layers (I've heard
> > tell this was even in the beta cycle of 4.0).
>
> Check the authorship of that document. Netscape knew where the W3C was
> headed; though the exact timing of their engagement with the W3C's CSS
> activities is a bit unclear, it was clearly well before the Navigator
> 4.0 release (June 1997). They may not have had the opportunity to
> backpedal by 4.0 and implement CSS Positioning, but they could have done
> the responsible thing and disable LAYER. Yet they included both it, and
> worse, JavaScript Style Sheets:
>
> <http://www.w3.org/Submission/1996/1/WD-jsss-960822>
Yeah. It was a dumb idea. No argument from me. :)
> > The reason that they became so popular is that despite their deprecation
> > they were much more reliable in 4.x than the standards way was. DIV and
> > SPAN features didn't always work correctly, so layers made an acceptable
> > alternative, since Web developers knew they'd have to develop
> > browser-specific content for this anyway (because IE's support was
> > different from Netscape's and both were different from the W3C's).
>
> Actually, IE 4.0's support of CSS positioning was a fairly reasonable
> implementation of the W3C's working draft at the time. It wasn't perfect,
> but they at least were on the right track.
Hindsight is 20/20, I suppose. While they were on the right track then,
they didn't really keep to that track. :)
> > Long story short, this argument mostly boils down to a bunch of Web
> > developers who are mad because they didn't read the documentation.
>
> Oh, please.
>
> Web developers are mad because they have had to deal with the clusterfuck
> that is Netscape 4.x for a few years now, and in exchange for their loyal
> support of that platform, Netscape rips the carpet out from under them
> rather than provide a real migration path.
Considering Netscape told them over two years ago, I don't think the
lack of a real migration path is any excuse.
> Don't confuse me for a sympathist, though--IMO, it was a mistake ever to
> loyally support a platform that so willfully and overtly diverged from
> Web standards. On those terms, Web developers are certainly getting
> what's coming to them.
You'll get no argument from me. I wasn't trying to imply that this was
a good scenario (and I tend to type when I'm half asleep, so I
occasionally end up saying things I don't mean :) ).
