Mark up For Neanderthals
Written by admin on May 5, 2009
“Mark” is not just a noun, it is also a verb. From the quill pen strokes of bearded academics to the vandal with a spray can, markup is both an action and a result. But marking up is more than this: it is fundamental creative license to express one’s own message. That is the effect of semi-literate thinking coupled with inspiration. Expressed in writing, in paint, carved on a tree, or by cutting back across a wave on a surfboard, it is to change the external world, one stroke at a time.
Such markup cannot be done by a soulless machine; it is the province of people only. Machines can only produce formatted files. It is the nature of people, in their non-electronic, non-digital, entirely organic way, to crash right across barriers they are not even aware of in order to get their message out. In the case of HTML, pages expressed in badly formed, ill-formed, invalid or just plain wrong syntax are victories of expression over technology. Such behaviour should not just be allowed, it should be encouraged and preserved, particularly for mediums such as HTML that are widely accessible and manageable by ignorant non-specialists.
Rough treatment of HTML therefore has more support in logic than the raising of standards in order that rough treatment be avoided. Symphonies of perfect HTML are still viable; but at the same time no one is excluded just because they can’t play the violin. The same should be true of other interaction methods that Web software supports.
Within Mozilla technology, human markup actions extend well beyond poorly formed HTML. Mozilla enthusiasts make their marks in the numerous small databases stored in user profiles, in stylesheets, in themes, in add-on and extensions, and in all kinds of both wise and foolish appropriations of the bundled and unbundled technologies. If Mozilla is to be a worthy piece of Web architecture it must learn to tolerate rough treatment in these areas as well as in HTML. It should not be fragile; it should not be full of arduous and Byzantine access paths.
The openness of Mozilla’s XUL/XBL tagset definition is an excellent example of a loosely managed canvas on which much can be casually and flexibly writ; the fragility of the chrome registration system is a clear counter example. It is relatively easy to bounce rudely up and down on XUL; but registering chrome requires finicky care.
The problem with arguments in favour of rough treatment is that it is all very well in principle, but in practice something must be engineered.
Posted in: Uncategorized
