Stop being a HTML slave. Free yourself from all existing specifications and be creative instead. Don't say this or that tag must be followed by that tag. Use HTML freely and do what you will with your web pages.
This citation comes from an article published in March issue of a Swedish Internet Magazine. The article also informs readers what a wonderful tool the transparent one pixel gif is and the ingenious way of fixing the shortage of web-fonts by creating one's own and then taking a snapshot of them. The article doesn't mention of course the "HTML way" of creating Web pages. Platform independent documents, portability, basic concept of the Web are non existent - only hacks and work-arounds, anything but HTML.
"Free yourself from all existing specifications and be creative instead." What does it mean? Drop HTML altogether? Create your own? Draw your pages in your favorite desktop publishing program and take a snapshot? If so, why involve HTML into this creation at all. Why not call it "Ways to create web pages without knowing/using HTML"?
The author's aversion to HTML is clear and I strongly suspect it is due to his poor knowledge of the language. There is nothing wrong in writing about hacks and work-arounds or even breaking a rule or two. But before one can begin to look for alternative ways one must know what the problem is and why it cannot be solved by conventional means; in other words, contradictory to what the author says, it requires knowledge of HTML specifications.
I personally have no moral objections to breaking some rules but in order to break the rules (any rules at all) one has to learn them first. Try tell tax collectors "Sorry, I didn't know the rules". The rules should be broken consciously and not out of ignorance. One must be aware of what one is doing as well as if the benefits are worth the consequences.
But what one can gain from not putting the tags in order? How is following the standard and writing correctly e.g. <code1><code2>....</code2></code1> more difficult than ignoring it and using erroneous <code1><code2>....</code1></code2>? What is the benefit? There is none. And the consequence of such action may be illegible document in browsers that are less tolerant to syntax errors. Where is the logic?
And why is transparent one pixel gif such a great tool? Because it was invented by a "true" designer and not a boring standard setting man at W3C? If these newcomers to web designing were first introduced to the specifications they would also have much better understanding of how the hacks work or don't work for that matter. Perhaps they could even find their own work-around without necessarily having to break the rules or "free themselves from all specifications".
Unfortunately they weren't given that possibility. Not only were the readers encouraged to breaking the rules but they were also misinformed or perhaps I should say the information was withheld from them. Not only were the facts withheld from them but they were also left with an impression that the hacks described by the author were the only solutions to the problems.
I am absolutely not suggesting that the HTML hacks should be forbidden or that the web designers shouldn't get information about them but they must not be confused with the "academic" way of structuring documents and therefore clearly called by their real name. Making them look as though they were part of the specification, the same specification that one should free oneself from is nothing more but heights of unprofessionalism, for I find withholding information and thus refusing the reader making his/her own decision very unprofessional and unethical, or simply pure ignorance.
I wrote a letter to the author in which I strongly expressed my disagreement with his view. His answer was as expected: We don't care if users use Lynx or have "wrong" screen resolution. These are their limitations not ours. So, the user is to blame for his/hers bad equipment (and the standard of course). Furthermore, the author informed me that the article was directed to those who hate HTML and specifications. Perhaps I should mention that the article was published in a magazine for Internet newcomers and there was no dedication as to what group it was directed to.
Who are these people that hate so much HTML and specifications? People who think that because of the job they used to do have now an undeniable right to continue in the same fashion on the Web. It isn't so difficult to guess. They are folks from newspapers and advertising.
Folks who don't seem to have the slightest idea what WWW is and how it works, folks who haven't got the basic knowledge of HTML and refuse to learn it. Yet they are convinced that writing for a paper magazine or designing paper leaflets 1) gives them automatically precedence to designing Web sites, and that 2) Web sites must be created exactly the same way as their paper equivalents - layout, columns, spacing and all. Folks who insist that standard used in printed magazines should also be standard on the Web. Folks who refuse to accept that printed and online magazines are two different media.
Two entirely different media. Two different ways of expressing and receiving. Why should they share the same standards? Why treat them as one? Why not enjoy each one of them in their own right. Two entirely different media require two entirely different standards. Trying to do anything else won't do justice to either of them.
It is beyond my comprehension why standards that belong to one medium should be at any cost applied to another. And of course this fundamental question comes to mind - Why do it in the first place? Why not take this great opportunity that was given to us and try to create/develop/explore an entirely new forum. Such opportunities are very rare. Introducing television some 50 years ago was the last one. As one doesn't show radio on TV screens one shouldn't display online magazines that look exactly the same as the printed ones on our computer screens.
Conservatism is a very fine quality. In this case, however, it is nothing more than an obstacle. Let us be grateful for the given chance to create new standards instead of holding on to the old ones at any price, especially when holding on to the old standards means breaking the rules set by the new ones for none or little reward.
Encouraging to ignoring specifications and creating platform dependent documents hence making them inaccessible for many not only opposes the fine spirit of WWW but also creates chaos and confusion as well as spreads misinformation amongst the newcomers.
I was curious of other people's views on the quote and mailed it to a local news group along with a copy of my response to the author. The reaction was negative. Analogies to music and language were made: "Stop being a harmony/language slave and be creative instead. Don't say this or that note/word must be followed by that one. Surely one can create music/sentence this way too but will anybody find such music pleasurable. Will it be possible to communicate not understanding the language?
The publisher of said magazine made a statement too. He didn't add anything to the thread but started a new one in which he attacked me personally. There was no one explanatory word as to magazine's view on the issue, which one would expect, but a personal vendetta directed on me. His action not only degraded magazine's creditability to zero but also made it clear that for some the standards just don't mean anything; may it be social behavior or HTML.
[Upp] [Börsen] [Referesnböcker]