Re: Lynx as primary browser (was Re: [Lynx-dev] how to maximize client area???)

[Seth House]

I also use HTML instead of XHTML where appropriate, HTML will be
around for a long time still. But do you also have a copy of VisiCalc
kicking around to open ancient spreadsheets? The 2.0 browsers are a
decade old, I've never even seen one.

Lynx should (and does) keep up with modern standards, and I believe
that web designers are moving toward more Lynx-friendly practices. If
you need proof hit the new Disney Store UK or Chevrolet websites with
Lynx: they're beautiful!

http://disneystore-shopping.disney.co.uk/store/Home.aspx
http://www.chevrolet.com/

You're right in that XHTML has yet to prove itself, however. I'm
excited to see where the web will be in another decade.

- whiteinge


On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 19:16:21 -0800, Walter Ian Kaye
<address@hidden> wrote:
> At 07:29p -0700 01/31/2005, Seth House didst inscribe upon an
> electronic papyrus:
> 
> >On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 15:23:56 -0800, Walter Ian Kaye
> ><address@hidden> wrote:
> >  > At 09:53p +0000 01/30/2005, Thorsten Glaser didst inscribe upon an
> >  > electronic papyrus:
> >  >
> >  > >   and be XHTML/1.1 compliant.
> >  >
> >  > Screw xhtml. <g>  I'm sticking with HTML, just like I stick with Lynx. 
> > :-)
> >  > I expect both to outlive me. ;)
> >
> >You meant that tongue-in-cheek, I know.
> 
> Actually I was serious; the smilies were an attempt to compensate for
> my language. ;)

Ah, then I suppose my failure to notice the bad language betrays my
own poor manners. ;-)

> 
> In fact, I have no intention of using xhtml for any of my Web sites.
> I consider it a designed-by-committee experiment for which I have yet
> to see any definitive proof that it is backward compatible with all
> HTML 2.0 browsers. What I have seen are plenty of sites which use a
> mixture of xhtml and html on the same page, which is... well, no
> point in trying to label that situation except to say that it's not
> any improvement, and since HTML is here to stay and is not about to
> be "turned off" (who's gonna rewrite millions of HTML pages or cut
> off access to them?), I'm quite happy to stay with it. (Whew, run-on
> sentence.)
>
> 
> >I see the broad adoption of
> >XHTML as a boon for Lynx since it facilitates more attention payed to
> >document structure and the probable end of using tables for layout (as
> >we've discussed
> >(http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lynx-dev/2005-01/msg00123.html)).
> 
> Maybe when pigs fly. Inertia is powerful stuff.
> Existing documents don't magically change. People have better things
> to do with their time than continually recoding documents to match
> the markup language du jour, to say nothing of documents saved at
> archive.org whose original Web sites and authors have expired. Heck,
> even within XHTML circles there's already been flap about backward
> compatibility amongst versions of XHTML. No thanks, I'm sticking with
> HTML; leave the moving targets for people who don't need a life.
>
> 
> -boo
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Lynx-dev mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lynx-dev
>