but with HTML, you get to see the problem that faces open standards. people don't *have* to follow the standards when they write their programs (eg, internet explorer ). as a result, if you want to deliver an electronic document halfway around the world, you can't garuntee it'll look exactly the way you want it to. this goes far beyond simple formatting issues, btw, because there are large discrepancies in the ways that different browsers render HTML.

with a more tightly controlled format, like a word document or a PDF, you can more or less control these issues.

besides that, HTML offers no compression, or any way to embed images or fonts, and often requires multiple files. it's not ideal for a "portable" format, which would ideally contain everything it needs within single file.

 

Don't blame HTML. It's the moron who writes the browser that doesn't use the standards.

 

i'm not blaming HTML, but like it or not, these problems *do* exist with open standards like HTML.

 

Then don't blame open standards. Either way your casting blame on the wrong area.

The fact that the standards are open is a good thing, not a crutch. Just because some joe decides to makeup his own standards is not a basis of arguement.

 

where am i blaming anything? i'm not blaming open standards either, i'm just saying that there are problems with them. it's not necessarily the fault of the standard or the creators, but there *are* problems. how is this example in particular not a problem? because of their open nature, the formats are left open to these kind of situations. if there were some international law that would levy fines or require jail time for breaking standards, then i would be all for it. but at this point, the fact that they cannot be enforced in any way, shape or form is a problem. anyone (like microsoft) can come along and crap all over it, and as we've seen with HTML, CSS and Javascript, the world could very easily accept it. this is a problem, is it not? again, i'm not trying to blame the standards or their creators or anything like that - i'm just saying, it's not perfect.

there are arguments to both sides of the open-standards debate, and neither is 100% right or 100% wrong. i agree that open standards are a good thing, but there are still issues with the concept in general.

 

I know what your trying to say. It's just how it's being said is what I'm trying to say is a problem.

 

i would trust sending a PDF file than sending an HTML file. the PDF will keep everything you designed or wanted in that file the way it is...no matter which platform opens the file, no matter what font or settings you used.

sending an HTML file will probably be viewed different ways depending on what program or platform see's it.

 

Maybe now Flash will get some half decent tools and be used as a less-expensive Photoshop.


It's a great program for drawing, but nooobody uses it.

 

I dont think anyone uses Flash for drawing or picture editing. Flash is a timeline based program to make movies and interactive interfaces that are web ready. It's basically a Macromedia Director program for the internet. Illustrator or Freehand would be a better applicatioin to draw with.

 

I dunno about all this HTML vs. PDF technobabble stuff.

What I do know is that when I send out job applications by email I write the cover letter in the body of the email message and attatch the resume as a PDF file. That way it shows up nice and professional lookin like I published it, rather than just being a document file and opening up in some kind of word processor window for them, or an HTML file and opening up in a browser window; either of which is eminently less cool than a nice uneditable (unless they have the full version of Acrobat) PDF that looks like an actual piece of paper but on the computer screen.