Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="William Gill, post: 4224786"] Now you're confusing me. "The de facto .html standard, which would have been in place...", was it the standard (de facto or otherwise) or would it have been the standard if it actually was in place, or just should have been the standard because that's how Tim learned it? No, I'm telling you that many of them didn't know the difference. They weren't "command line cobblers" and they didn't have access to a *nix (the Holy Grail of OS's) box . They used the defaults in whatever editors they could find. Again, thought the server doesn't seem to have ever been the problem, supporting any file name, you are saying people who authored on desktops, and used editors that employed 3 character extensions, should have been prohibited from participating until they could speak fluent *nix, and passed whatever other entrance exam "real programmers" presented for them? Good luck with that. Let me pose a hypothetical. I own a business that creates specialty editing software, and I see that much of the business world (my market) is buying computers made by Multi-National Business Instrument (MBI). I realize the OS for these machines is made by SoftwareforMicros (SM), started by Gil Bates. Being a technophile I realize that another OS is being used by the technophile community who probably wouldn't purchase my software anyway, so I tell my customers I won't sell you anything as long as you are using that inferior OS. Yeah right! Sometimes the when a rush happens, things get pushed along by the tide. I can remember lots of times when things developed and evolved long before the standards. Sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse. Then everyone scurried to create standards around what was already there. I seem to remember Yucca suggesting HTML standards are that way. What I'm sensing here is more a resentment that the unwashed were allowed into the sandbox, and the pure of heart still resent it. [/QUOTE]

Verification