Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m very sorry, but I don’t understand where you’re coming from. The original proposal seems to be this: You publish a document. The platform takes care of presenting it. One criticism was: No, people want to control the styling of what they publish. My counter argument is: There are many successful platforms that don’t allow people to style the content they publish, and people seem to be fine with that. Again, assum…
> The original proposal seems to be this: You publish a document. The platform takes care of presenting it. And with a language that explicitly does not allow styling, how exactly is "the platform" that takes care of presenting it going to render anything but a single, default style for all content without...reinventing styling? > One criticism was: No, people want to control the styling of what they publish. No, one…
I think I understand that you are imagining a middleman to be “the platform” even in the context of NAVI/ALFI. I understood NAVI itself to be this platform; much like the Facebook app allows you to publish and browse Facebook content with very little variation in the styling of different content, so NAVI might allow you to browse and perhaps create ALFI content with little variation in styling. You are comparing all the content within Facebook and others to the content on the rest of the web, while I’m talking about how content within a platform doesn’t need to be visually distinct for the platform to be appealing to publishers and readers. You’re thinking of the web as the “platform”, Facebook etc as the “creators” on the platform, and you are grouping people who publish and read on Facebook as “end-users”. I’m thinking of Facebook as the platform, people who publish things on Facebook as creators, and people who read the things published as the end-users.
Sorry in advance if I’ve misrepresented what you’re saying, but this is the best I can do in explaining why we’re unable to understand one another.