Re: HTML v. Acrobat (was Electronic File Transfer)

Subject: Re: HTML v. Acrobat (was Electronic File Transfer)
From: David Blyth <dblyth -at- QUALCOMM -dot- COM>
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1996 12:42:27 -0700

Hi all;

Arlen Walker commented that...

>I still don't see how a web browser improves on Acrobat.

I'm missing something here. A Web browser is not designed to improve on
Acrobat. They're designed to connect to the Internet (to other documents,
functions such email, news or ftp, or even full-scale applications).

IMHO, it seems like much of the debate has revolved around the appearance
of the document. What does it look like on the screen?

But Web pages aren't designed for appearance in the first place. HTML's
structure is designed to provide compatability between the multiple file
formats and appliations on the Internet.

Acrobat wins the appearance issue so easily that it's not worth debating.
But the real question is not appearance, but how to get reliable information
to the customer.

Browser proponents (myself included) contend only that a browser structure
and flexible file formats is _usually_ more important than appearance because:

o The customer gets what they need a lot faster

o The customer can link to other useful applications or functions
(not provided by Acrobat) without increasing overhead.

David (The Man) Blyth
Technical Writer & Web Site Designer
Qualcomm

The usual disclaimers apply - I don't speak for QUALCOMM, they don't speak
for me....


Previous by Author: HTML v. Acrobat (was Electronic File Transfer)
Next by Author: Re[2]: HTML v. Acrobat (was Electronic File Transfer)
Previous by Thread: Re: HTML v. Acrobat (was Electronic File Transfer)
Next by Thread: Re[2]: HTML v. Acrobat (was Electronic File Transfer)


What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads


Sponsored Ads