by Gary Welz, Tangent Design
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
The Future of HTML
With version 3.2 under discussion, HTML is becoming more sophisticated, but there is a raging debate about what direction(s) it should take or whether it's even good for it to evolve at all. The two principles are, of course, the usual suspects: Microsoft and Netscape.The current manifestation of the HTML debate is revolving around two competing visions of what is being called Dynamic HTML, a set of features that will let visitors change the appearance of a page once it's been downloaded. It would allow a user to move images on the page--to rearrange furniture on a floor plan or the clothing on a model, for example.
Netscape is proposing a new standard called Layers that they have developed independently and are moving forward with, in advance of its inclusion in the new HTML specification being developed by the W3 Consortium. (The W3C is the international body organized to draft and adopt a specification that will preserve the interoperability of Web documents on all machines and all Web browsers.)
Microsoft's version of Dynamic HTML, in contrast, is being developed in concert with the W3C's emerging specification for Cascading Style Sheets and Absolute Positioning. These will reportedly have the same capabilities as Layers.
Kyle Shannon, founder and CEO of one of New York's premiere interactive development companies, Agency.com feels that Microsoft and Netscape are both behaving like brutes--Goliath vs. Goliath--with regard to Dynamic HTML. His sympathy, however, is more with Microsoft than Netscape. Ironically, the two software giants have reversed their usual roles. In the past, Microsoft has been the one promoting propreitary features, like the marquee tag, while Netscape has been the champion of open standards.
Although Netscape says its browsers will support the Cascading Style Sheet (CSS) standard, at the present time CSS pages don't look the same in its newest browser as they do in Microsoft's. Are developers going to have to create two versions of every site? Shannon begs, à la Rodney King, "Can't we all just get along?"
The CSS problem echos the problem with the marquee tag that could only be viewed in IE. Microsoft abandoned that tag, but they continue to hang on to proprietary aspects of ActiveX, where they have a much greater investment. If you view the MSN site with a Netscape browser, you don't see any of the ActiveX features that you see using IE.
One of the Web's greatest attributes is that its computer- and browser-independent standard enables a variety of multimedia documents to be viewed nearly identically. The emergence of competing proprietary features puts the entire Web publishing enterprise at risk.
Brian McCormick of Broadway Interactive, another leading interactive company, says, "Propreitary HTML tags must not be tolerated. . . . We have to support open standards. HTML cannot be owned." He, too, feels that Microsoft is in the more sympathetic position with regards to CSS.
"HTML exists because it is a ubiquitious open standard. The Microsoft proposal [for CSS] lets that happen. Netscape's Layers can only be viewed by a browser that reads the JavaScript Layer tag--i.e., a Netscape browser. Their attitude about Layers is 'I did it, come get me.'"
McCormick doesn't plan to use Layers in the sites Broadway Interactive creates because they can only be viewed in a Netscape browser. "Why bother," he says. "The W3C standard for Absolute Positioning allows us to do everything that can be done with Layers."
Thinking about the big picture, Shannon cautions against becoming obsessed with the capabilities of the technology. "The level of the technology used should commensurate with the content it's used to present. Although a more diverse palette of tools is being created, winners will come from creative people who use [those tools] to make good stuff."
