Re: CXS page (fy: (Mis)Naming a Language)

> I know presentation wasn't the goal of HTML, but the cold hard truth is
> that on today's Internet presentation is half the web site.
True.  But websites which care that much about presentation do it with Flash
anyway, so who cares about HTML? :)

> I've read that it has caused some grief with Flash animations and
> QuickTime video, which are not IE-specific at all.
And which should be included via the <object> tag in that case.

> <EMBED> never was standard HTML, I know that; but it was still
> supported and used, and when it was pulled out from underneath us it
> caused unnecessary trouble. (Not to say that the introduction of
> <EMBED> in the first case didn't cause unnecessary trouble, either. :)
It was never "pulled out from underneath" anyone.  If you don't care
about your pages working in anything but IE on Windows, you can still
use <embed> as much as you want. If you care about writing
standards-compliant HTML that works in other browsers on other
platforms, then you can't use it - but then, you never could.

> I didn't mean that CSS was necessarily harder. It's just that C-style
> syntax (brackets, braces, commas, and semicolons everywhere) tends to
> scare beginners away.
If you say so, I'll take your word for it; I'm afraid I'm too far
removed to judge, since I've been programming for my entire adult life
(plus a good bit of my pre-adult life as well).

> And yes, it certainly does make things easier with regards to making
> site-wide changes.
Not to mention supporting mild variants of a page without having to
generate the HTML dynamically (via PHP or Java or what have you).

-Marcos