Content 2.0

Weighing the alternatives to HTML

By Neil McAllister

New Architect
October 2002

When was the last time a Web page written in HTML really wowed you? Chalk up lackluster site presentation to the limitations of the medium itself. The Web's hypertext system of links and tags was designed with information architecture in mind, not graphic design. The earliest versions of HTML didn't support graphics of any kind—it took Marc Andreessen's Mosaic browser to deliver that. Even today, HTML offers scant control over design essentials like typography and screen layout, and does little to accommodate complex interactions between browsers and servers. Making a trip to the server after each mouse click is a fairly inefficient way to deliver information. As Web development increasingly focuses on applications, markup's limitations are becoming more and more apparent.

Concerns like these have given rise to a number of proposed alternatives. Most notable among the current crop are Macromedia Flash MX and the Curl content language. Both Macromedia and the Curl Corporation have positioned their products as superior alternatives to yesterday's plain HTML, and not just for gimmicks and entertainment sites. Both companies are hoping to win converts among the enterprise market as well.

Make no mistake: Ditching HTML isn't for everyone. Sites that are truly trying to reach the widest possible audience are advised to stick with the basics. If you are able to target your audience more narrowly, however, you may want to consider more advanced client-side technologies. Moving beyond simple markup can offer significant benefits, especially for sites with sophisticated UI requirements, or when you want a user experience with a little more pizzazz.