Netscape and others Vs Microsoft
Watchdog
that MS considers it's self at war with any companies that occupy software
space. In many ways we can liken Balmer the General and his President like we
view other advocates of war. They pursue a version of genocide, software
genocide.
Their (MS) justification is based on corporate survival. We must question why
a company should be allowed to envoke a winning strategy that does not rely on
superior products but uses alledged threats and scare tactics. Bullies
whether in Bosnia, the school yard or in corporate life should be controlled.
If we continue to role over when MS decides we should then we risk loosing
quality innovation from companies like Netscape.
I would like to see a newsgroup that focuses on MS tactics and what can be
done to displace them when they interfere with progress, eg. this heavy handed
behaviour over security.
In this instance we can email Visa with boycott messages and support
MasterCard by using their card in preference. Companies that align themselves
with strategies that place obstacles in the way of progress should realize
that they must pay a price.
Email your feelings to the Visa spokesperson
David Melancon
mela...@visa.com
No single company can combat MS but if the Internet community, both corporates
and individuals, pull together we can help companies like Netscape to survive
and succeed.
The result means better products not only from new vendors but also Microsoft.
I propose a new group called MS Watchdog. If their is support for this please
reply.
Please no childish flaming, this is not a bashing endevour, it is suggested
only as a means of maintaing a balance.
Believe in the power of one and we can control our environment, accept and you
must live with the consequenses.
A. Rice
would recommend a moderated group. That way the quality of discussion
and information can be of a higher level and the noise level low.
I would NOT welcome just another anti/advocacy type newsgroup but would
indeed like to know more about what is actually happening in the
software marketplace.
Anyone else interested?
Allen,
ral...@ix.netcom.com
Josh E. Schneider
-Josh Schneider
Walter H
believe that anything can be done, or they don't believe that MS
is , in fact , using pressure to sell their products rather than
selling them on their own merrits, and worst of all , they don't
believe that they are often an obstacle that attenuates the natural
speed of software evolution. It is certainly important for people
to be aware of what MS is doing. (however we must be careful that
such a group does not turn into a slander-fest.) We must have FACTS
(which should be plenty damning in themselves) Rash speculation and
anti MS propaganda would destroy the credibility of such a group.
Anyhow, you get my vote for the group
"Where can we make you go today?" :)
Thomas Wolf
: If you have witnessed Microsoft's Steve Balmer speaking you quickly realise
: space. In many ways we can liken Balmer the General and his President like we
: view other advocates of war. They pursue a version of genocide, software
: genocide.
If you really feel M$ threatens software innovation and should be controlled,
do so with your actions. IMHO, there are quite a few hypocrites on the net
who bitch and moan about M$, but then log off and buy M$ products :-(
I dislike Microsoft (and monopolies in general). I back up my position by
buying alternatives to MS products whenever possible (but, alas, sometimes
this is hard in areas where MS no longer has competition :-(
Just another rant, I guess.
Tom
--
+------------------------------------------+
| Thomas Wolf | (908) 949-6283 |...Still can't think of anything
| Bell Labs, NJ | wo...@beowulf.ho.att.com | original to put in my sig...
| HO 2M-203 | wo...@honshu.ho.att.com |...So this valuable real-estate
+------------------------------------------+ is for sale...
Disclaimer: These are my opinions and not necessarily those of my employer.
C. Anthony Ray
you would find it harder to believe Microsoft poses a threat
to Netscape or anyone else supporting the Internet.
Mike Meyer
People said much the same thing about MS-DOS and desktop computers
when it first showed up.
Good marketing beats good technology, every time.
<mike
Frank McNeil
: Watchdog (jo...@hkstar.com) wrote:
: : If you have witnessed Microsoft's Steve Balmer speaking you quickly realise
: : that MS considers it's self at war with any companies that occupy software
: : space. In many ways we can liken Balmer the General and his President like we
: : view other advocates of war. They pursue a version of genocide, software
: : genocide.
: If you really feel M$ threatens software innovation and should be controlled,
: do so with your actions. IMHO, there are quite a few hypocrites on the net
: who bitch and moan about M$, but then log off and buy M$ products :-(
: I dislike Microsoft (and monopolies in general). I back up my position by
: buying alternatives to MS products whenever possible (but, alas, sometimes
: this is hard in areas where MS no longer has competition :-(
: Just another rant, I guess.
: Tom
I can rant to.
I think I dislike commies and bureaucrats (people who follow specs no matter
what the say). Long live _the_customer_ and the vendors that respond to what
customers want. In other words long live Microsoft and Netscape; Companies
that give customers what they need and want.
frank
Robert S
In my opinion...
I feel that a MS watchdog newsgroup would be an excellent addition
to a rapidly MS controlled world. Their concept of fair competition is a
courtroom full of their VERY expensive lawyers, which they use as
dangerous weapons against any anti-trust matter that gets in their way of
doing business. Except for the Intuit deal, they have won every battle. When
will people realize that such a monopolization of software development, as
well as continual underhanded competitive tactics (witholding development
information, contracts with vendors that border on racketeering, et al) will
lead to less options, less quality, and eventual and complete dependence on
one software company?
Their success and monopolization has brought MS much power as
well as financial riches. Yet, how much bigger can they get? Are they
close to critical mass? They might be in certain areas, and that is why
you will see them expanding into other areas. Stocks that don't grow in
value aren't as attractive to investors, and besides, MS has an ego to
protect.
I think we have just seen the tip of the iceberg as MS will begin
investing in other areas they have never been involved in. They will
certainly try to dominate the internet. Whether they will be successful will
remain to be seen. However their interests in entertainment and media
industries really scare me. They recently were very interested in buying a huge
portion of Turner Broadcasting (CNN). CNN would have in turn used the
monetary infusion to buy CBS. Keep in mind that MS would be at the top of
the power pyramid in such a merger, thus allowing them to have control
over CBS and it's affiliates and subsidiaries as well.
When they own the news and thus control the media's perceived opinion of
corporate America, there will trully be only dark days ahead.
I can only hope that the courts will squelch MS's monopolistic
tendencies... but then again, if a jury could not convict a recently released
Hollywood murderer, in a case in which the evidence was OVERWHELMING, can we
expect any kind of justice in an anti-trust case in which the evidence has a
high probability of being confusing, complicated, and from the jury's
standpoint, boring?
I support the formation of a MS watchdog newsgroup.
Chris Wilson
In article <4557oe$3...@bull.hkstar.net>, jo...@hkstar.com says...
>If you have witnessed Microsoft's Steve Balmer speaking you quickly
>realise that MS considers it's self at war with any companies that
>occupy software space.
Hmm. I don't really think that's true. You seem to have confused Microsoft's goal
of "a computer on every desktop running Microsoft software" with "a computer on
every desktop running *ONLY* Microsoft software, regardless of whether it's any
good or not." No one here at Microsoft questions that we want to have the BEST
software out there - if they do, they don't belong here.
>We must question why
>a company should be allowed to envoke a winning strategy that does not rely on
>superior products but uses alledged threats and scare tactics. Bullies
>whether in Bosnia, the school yard or in corporate life should be controlled.
Agreed. As I've said previously in this newsgroup, I personally do not always
agree with Microsoft's marketing practices. However, I *DO* believe that Microsoft
is gaining market share in mainly due to the great software we produce, as well as
the GOOD marketing (that is, not "scare tactic" marketing, but packaging, etc.)
>If we continue to role over when MS decides we should then we risk loosing
>quality innovation from companies like Netscape.
As much as it pains me to reply to a sentence with two spelling errors in it, I
agree, at least where the rolling over for Microsoft comes in to play. If you
simply used Internet Explorer because it came with your computer, or because
Microsoft intentionally broke any other browser in Windows 95, and Netscape
Navigator were truly ten times better, you would be a fool. However, contrary to
what you imply, Microsoft is innovative. More innovative, in my opinion, than most
computer software companies, including Netscape. That's why I'm here - we produce
great software.
Also, if you honestly don't see Netscape using the same kind of marketing tactics
that you accuse Microsoft of using, you need to look at the way they work a little
more closely.
>I would like to see a newsgroup that focuses on MS tactics and what can be
>done to displace them when they interfere with progress, eg. this heavy handed
> behaviour over security.
Fair enough.
>No single company can combat MS but if the Internet community, both corporates
>and individuals, pull together we can help companies like Netscape to survive
>and succeed.
"Josh E. Schneider" <jsch...@ais.net> wrote:
>What makes you think Netscape will be any less predatory?
which I think is a great answer. Netscape has, in fact, shown that they would like
to be just as predatory. They would, I am sure, love to own the Web completely.
I'm not asking anyone to cut Microsoft any slack - if you think our software sucks,
or you think someone else's is better than ours, don't use it. Just keep in mind
that the Web is no long a happy-go-lucky academic world where everyone is in it for
the good of the whole. I'm a fan of innovation. I'm a fan of great software. I'm
also strongly for the good of the whole, and that's how I vote with my software
dollar.
ftme...@shell1.best.com (Frank McNeil) wrote:
>I think I dislike commies and bureaucrats (people who follow specs no
>matter what the say). Long live _the_customer_ and the vendors that
>respond to what customers want. In other words long live Microsoft and
>Netscape; Companies that give customers what they need and want.
which is also a great way of putting it. I would add that I like to function for
the good of the whole also. I would not give a five-year-old acid to play with
because it's what he wants. If all he wants is something that can make pretty
designs on glass, I'd give him some paint.
-Chris Wilson
Again, read the disclaimer - this is ME talking, not Microsoft.
--
The opinions expressed in this message are my own personal views
and do not reflect the official views of Microsoft Corporation.
mike swartzbeck
group sounds like a winner to me.
I'm not exactly the orgnizer type, but keep me informed if anyone else
is and decides to get some action going.
**********************************************************************
see here how everything leads up to this day
and it's just like every other day that's ever been
sun comin' up and then the sun it's goin' down
shine through my window, and my friends they come around
--grateful dead
michael swartzbeck * sin...@clark.net, sin...@his.com
http://myhouse.com/mikesite/home.html
**********************************************************************
Cameron Laird
.
.
.
>I would like to see a newsgroup that focuses on MS tactics and what can be
>done to displace them when they interfere with progress, eg. this heavy handed
> behaviour over security.
.
.
Is that in addition to alt.destroy.microsoft and alt.news.microsoft?
Boy, you people sure do get happy with your cross-posting buttons.
Follow-ups severely narrowed.
--
Cameron Laird http://starbase.neosoft.com/~claird/home.html
cla...@NeoSoft.com +1 713 267 7966
+1 713 996 8546 FAX
--
Cameron Laird http://starbase.neosoft.com/~claird/home.html
cla...@NeoSoft.com +1 713 267 7966
+1 713 996 8546 FAX
--
Cameron Laird http://starbase.neosoft.com/~claird/home.html
cla...@NeoSoft.com +1 713 267 7966
+1 713 996 8546 FAX
--
Cameron Laird http://starbase.neosoft.com/~claird/home.html
cla...@NeoSoft.com +1 713 267 7966
+1 713 996 8546 FAX
--
Cameron Laird http://starbase.neosoft.com/~claird/home.html
cla...@NeoSoft.com +1 713 267 7966
+1 713 996 8546 FAX
Chintan Amin
(Chris Wilson) wrote:
> <Newsgroup list trimmed a bit to save bandwidth>
>
> In article <4557oe$3...@bull.hkstar.net>, jo...@hkstar.com says...
> >If we continue to role over when MS decides we should then we risk loosing
> >quality innovation from companies like Netscape.
>
> As much as it pains me to reply to a sentence with two spelling errors
in it, I
> agree, at least where the rolling over for Microsoft comes in to play.
If you
Aw JEEEEEEZ, Wilson. You work for a company that's made so many
mistakes in the past year that those two spelling mistakes look like the
greatest achievments in Western Culture in comparison. C'mon, who the
hell are you to lecture about mistakes? You work for one.
replies and follow-ups set
--
Chintan Amin ca...@grove.ufl.edu http://grove.ufl.edu/~camin
University of Florida College of Law Class of 1998
University of Illinois College of Engineering Class of 1995
Buy This Line
Marcus Edward Hennecke
Frank McNeil <ftme...@shell1.best.com> wrote:
>I think I dislike commies and bureaucrats (people who follow specs no matter
>what the say). Long live _the_customer_ and the vendors that respond to what
>customers want. In other words long live Microsoft and Netscape; Companies
>that give customers what they need and want.
Frank, that's just a myth.
Microsoft and Netscape give the customers what they want? Yes, I guess
you're right if by "they" you mean Microsoft and Netscape and not the
customers.
Let's make a comparison between Netscape/Microsoft and HTML3.0 with
stylesheets, shall we? On this newsgroup, quite a few questions appear
quite frequently. For example:
Things that HTML 3.0 and stylesheets can do that Netscape can't:
How do I give table borders a different color?
Netscape: impossible (or only with kludges)
Stylesheets: easy
How do I display a caption underneath an image?
Netscape: must make text part of the image
HTML 3.0: use the <CAPTION> element
How do I display the british pound sign, the japanese yen, the
trademark symbol, the emdash and the endash, etc.?
Netscape: not possible or only if you know the code
HTML 3.0: £ ¥ ™ &emdash; &endash;
How do I overlap images?
Netscape: a bunch of kludges have been proposed, none of which really work
HTML 3.0: Use the <OVERLAY> element
How do I make an inlined animation?
Netscape: must use server-push kludge
HTML: No new tag is necessary, <IMG> is quite sufficient as both
emacs-w3 and the Amiga browser show. <FIG>, too can be used for
inlined animations.
How do I test my imagemaps offline? How do I create client-side
imagemaps?
Netscape: only possible with version 2.0, uses non-standard method
HTML 3.0: Use <FIG> and the SHAPE attribute.
How do I color text differently?
Netscape: only possible with version 2.0
Stylesheets: easy
How do I make my text justified?
Netscape: impossible
HTML 3.0: align=justify
How do I indent the first line of a paragraph?
Netscape: kludges necessary, no control over amount of indentation
Stylesheets: easy, control over amount of indentation available
How do I change the margins, fonts, font sizes, colors, etc.?
Netscape: impossible or only with major kludges that usually screw
things up on other browsers
Stylesheets: easy
Things that both Netscape and HTML 3.0 offer, but in different ways:
How do I center things?
Netscape: <CENTER>
HTML 3.0: align=center
Things unique to Netscape:
How do I make blinking text?
Netscape: <BLINK>
Stylesheets: I guess one could add a blink property...
How do I create frames?
Netscape: possible in 2.0, that's probably the only thing that
Netscape added and that might even be useful
HTML 3.0: only <BANNER> available
Note how I did not mention math since it does not seem to be as much
requested as the other features.
I am not flaming Netscape for not supporting all of HTML 3.0. After
all, it is a spec still in flux. I don't even flame them for not
implementing the stable parts of HTML 3.0.
However: Please don't spread the myth that Netscape satisfies user's
demands and HTML 3.0 does not. It is even more silly to claim that
Netscape's tags are better than those of HTML 3.0 in cases where they
are intended to accomplish the same thing (e.g. <CENTER> and
align=center) when clearly they are inferior. If Netscape wants to
introduce new tags which may or may not go into the standard, why not
HTML 3.0 tags, which have a pretty good chance of actually making it
into the final specs? I don't like Netscape inventing new tags when
there are already ways to do the same thing in the HTML 3.0 specs.
--
Marcus E. Hennecke
mar...@leland.stanford.edu http://www.crc.ricoh.com/~marcush/
For FAQs first check ftp://rtfm.mit.edu/pub/usenet/<name.of.newsgroup>
Brandi Weed
>Things that HTML 3.0 and stylesheets can do that Netscape can't:
[list snipped]
You forgot one that's really popular around here:
How do I do custom bullets for lists?
Netscape: clumsy <DL> hack
HTML 3.0: <LI SRC="my bullet.gif">
and similarly:
Custom <HR>s that work well for text-only/text-to-speech browsers:
Netscape:
<IMG SRC="rule.gif" ALT="_______________________________________________________________________">
HTML 3.0: <HR SRC="rule.gif">
--
Brandi Weed
bra...@primenet.com
http://www.primenet.com/~brandi/
Frank McNeil
I'll try to be brief. For me this is a non issue, since I believe
that HTML 3.0 is only a spec that was made without the input from paying
customers. I'm also not convinced that a good browser can be built that
is as fast as Netscape Navigator version 1.22, will run on the IBM
PC and will process stylesheet information.
Since no one has built one. I don't know if is possible. Hence
I repeat. HTML 3.0 is just a spec.
: In article <45fnlt$9...@shellx.best.com>,
: Frank McNeil <ftme...@shellx.best.com> wrote:
: >Marcus Edward Hennecke (mar...@leland.Stanford.EDU) wrote:
: >: Microsoft and Netscape give the customers what they want? Yes, I guess
: >: you're right if by "they" you mean Microsoft and Netscape and not the
: >: customers.
: >
: >I don't understand this.
: Easy: HTML 3.0 plus stylesheets wuold solve many of their customers
: needs. So do Netscape and Microsoft give it to them? No. The customer
: just get enough to keep them from switching to a different browser.
IMO, customers want the results that style sheets would give. Informed
customers want style sheets. IMHO, most customers just want something
they can use. They would also like word processor-to-HTML conversion
programs that will produce HTML files that don't have to be tampered with
to insure that most browsers can browse them. Hence most customers
want universal standards. IMO, IETF will not produce those standards
because browser companies will not follow their draft documents.
IMO <center> is a standard tag that more commercial-grade browsers use
than align=center.
: >: Let's make a comparison between Netscape/Microsoft and HTML3.0 with
: >: stylesheets, shall we? On this newsgroup, quite a few questions appear
: >: quite frequently. For example:
: >
: >I don't understand how a spec can be compared to an implementation;
: Your claim was that the working group is slow and irresponsive to
: user's needs. My claim is that HTML 3.0 as proposed by the working
: group combined with stylesheets *could* do everything NHTML does (with
: the only exception being <FRAME>) plus much more and that it would
: meet the user's needs much better in a much more elegant and more
: extensible way.
No that is not my claim at all. The working group doesn't write
commercial grade browser software. I think they are working on providing
a spec that is SGML conformant. Browser companies aren't doing that.
Hopefully browser companies will always keep up with where the working
group is. Currently HTML 2.0 (version 1.30 DTD) may be close to being
a standard. HTML 3.0 isn't close to being an IETF standard.
: >especially, since no one has proved it could be done on lowly
: >PC's.
: UdiWWW runs on PCs, emacs-w3 runs on PCs, WebTraveler runs on PCs and
: they all support more HTML 3.0 than Netscape and UdiWWW and emacs-w3
: also implement stylesheets.
Like many others I've used UDIWWW on-line. I've used emacs-w3 on-line
and offline (to slow for me). I haven't tried WebTraveler. Thanks
I'm going to try it, since I have a number of pages that don't go on-line and
don't have to conform to the way browsers browse.
By the way I also have Linux, which I only installed to run perl 5.0 and
Arena.
This is why I don't believe HTML 3.0 commercial-grade browsers exist.
: >Well that is my opinion. The paying customers just want results. They
: >don't want to wait for Microsoft (i.e., style sheets--IMO).
: I assume you are a customer, since you use Netscape and since you
: write pages that presumably will be viewed with Netscape (among other
: browsers). Why don't you send e-mail to Netscape and request that they
: implement HTML 3.0 and stylesheets? I don't see how that could be even
: close in complexity to their support for Java. I mean, if it is
: possible for a browser on a "lowly PC" to support Java, which is
: rather complex, then how hard could it be to support HTML 3.0 and
: stylesheets?
You are right I haven't written Netscape. Frankly I think they are smarter
than I'll ever be about these things. Since there is no commercial-grade
browser with style sheets, I don't know if such a thing is practical yet.
: >: Things that HTML 3.0 and stylesheets can do that Netscape can't:
: >
: >Netscape Navigator, the browser, can display things today; what can
: >a style sheet do today?
: Oh please, if Netscape hadn't decided to waste time on <FONT>, <BLINK>
: and <CENTER>, we could have had stylesheets now and there would be no
: problem at all. That's the whole point of it.
No one has produced a commercial-grade browser that uses style sheets that
ms-windows users can use. Hence it may not be practical.
: >: I am not flaming Netscape for not supporting all of HTML 3.0. After
: >: all, it is a spec still in flux. I don't even flame them for not
: >: implementing the stable parts of HTML 3.0.
: >
: >Why not talk about NCSA or some other existing browser? There are many
: >browsers companies to compare to the HTML 3.0 specification.
: As I said, I am not flaming Netscape for not supporting HTML 3.0. What
: I do flame them for is because they have done somthing that HTML 3.0
: does but in a different and inferior way. I don't see NCSA doing that.
I wish you would have given an example here, since I just assume that
only Netscape and Microsoft do new things well. Well the way
NCSA ms-windows browser implements <UL><LI><P>text</ul>text
and <UL><LI><P>text</p></ul>text is such an example; but that is HTML 2.0
stuff.
: >: However: Please don't spread the myth that Netscape satisfies user's
: >: demands and HTML 3.0 does not.
: >
: >Why should I bother. HTML 3.0 is only a spec, that no one has
: >implemented into a commercial-grade browser that works with IBM PC's.
: Frank, you don't seem to understand me at all: You said this:
: Long live _the_customer_ and the vendors that respond to what
: customers want. In other words long live Microsoft and Netscape;
: Companies that give customers what they need and want.
: and I say the HTML 3.0 draft proposed by the working group combined
: with stylesheets is closer to the customer's needs than what Netscape
: and Microsoft are offering.
I don't think so because a browser can be used and a spec must be
implemented. Know one has proven that style sheets can be implemented in
an ms-windows browser that is reliable and fast as Netscape Navigator 1.22.
: >: If Netscape wants to
: >: introduce new tags which may or may not go into the standard, why not
: >: HTML 3.0 tags, which have a pretty good chance of actually making it
: >: into the final specs? I don't like Netscape inventing new tags when
: >: there are already ways to do the same thing in the HTML 3.0 specs.
: >
: >The way life works browsers determine what standards they will
: >use and we adapt. Successful companies use customer input when determining
: >what their product does; IMO the HTML 3.0 spec wasn't able to do that.
: And I'll repeat again: Netscape apparently does *not* use customer
: input. Otherwise we would have a much more complete implementation of
: HTML 3.0 and stylesheets. The problem really is that Netscape almost
: has a monopoly on the browser market and that there is only little
: competition from HTML 3.0 compliant browsers. Thus, the customers
: don't have a choice.
I have never really seen this issue discussed in this group, and I don't
think I can do it justice. I'll just say this customers using software
today don't expect to study manuals. This is one of the reasons why
<center> is a good tag and why Netscape's refusal to use the SGML commenting
method is good [SGML comments start and end with "--", hence they can't
be commented out with the SGML comment.].
[deleted before I saw the last paragraph.]
: And once more: Netscape apparently is not following that
: directive. Suppose Microsoft were to come out with a browser that is
: much more HTML 3.0 compliant than Netscape and supported
: stylesheets. I would argue within only weeks it would become the
: dominant browser on the platforms it were available because it would
: actually give the customers what they want.
Well that isn't going to happen until windows 95 is the standard
PC operating system.
Strategically, I've always thought Netscape was going to try to use
the HTML3.0 hype against Microsoft in the future. That is, I expect
Netscape to follow the IETF stylesheet proposal when the time is right.
Some things are more important than style sheets. People won't use
browsers that produce GPF's [I seldom use Netscape 2.0 ;)]
HTML 3.0 is only a spec.
frank
Marcus Edward Hennecke
Frank McNeil <ftme...@shellx.best.com> wrote:
>Marcus Edward Hennecke (mar...@leland.Stanford.EDU) wrote:
>: Microsoft and Netscape give the customers what they want? Yes, I guess
>: you're right if by "they" you mean Microsoft and Netscape and not the
>: customers.
>
>I don't understand this.
Easy: HTML 3.0 plus stylesheets wuold solve many of their customers
needs. So do Netscape and Microsoft give it to them? No. The customer
just get enough to keep them from switching to a different browser.
>: Let's make a comparison between Netscape/Microsoft and HTML3.0 with
>: stylesheets, shall we? On this newsgroup, quite a few questions appear
>: quite frequently. For example:
>
>I don't understand how a spec can be compared to an implementation;
Your claim was that the working group is slow and irresponsive to
user's needs. My claim is that HTML 3.0 as proposed by the working
group combined with stylesheets *could* do everything NHTML does (with
the only exception being <FRAME>) plus much more and that it would
meet the user's needs much better in a much more elegant and more
extensible way.
>especially, since no one has proved it could be done on lowly
>PC's.
UdiWWW runs on PCs, emacs-w3 runs on PCs, WebTraveler runs on PCs and
they all support more HTML 3.0 than Netscape and UdiWWW and emacs-w3
also implement stylesheets.
>Well that is my opinion. The paying customers just want results. They
>don't want to wait for Microsoft (i.e., style sheets--IMO).
I assume you are a customer, since you use Netscape and since you
write pages that presumably will be viewed with Netscape (among other
browsers). Why don't you send e-mail to Netscape and request that they
implement HTML 3.0 and stylesheets? I don't see how that could be even
close in complexity to their support for Java. I mean, if it is
possible for a browser on a "lowly PC" to support Java, which is
rather complex, then how hard could it be to support HTML 3.0 and
stylesheets?
>: Things that HTML 3.0 and stylesheets can do that Netscape can't:
>
>Netscape Navigator, the browser, can display things today; what can
>a style sheet do today?
Oh please, if Netscape hadn't decided to waste time on <FONT>, <BLINK>
and <CENTER>, we could have had stylesheets now and there would be no
problem at all. That's the whole point of it.
>: I am not flaming Netscape for not supporting all of HTML 3.0. After
>: all, it is a spec still in flux. I don't even flame them for not
>: implementing the stable parts of HTML 3.0.
>
>Why not talk about NCSA or some other existing browser? There are many
>browsers companies to compare to the HTML 3.0 specification.
As I said, I am not flaming Netscape for not supporting HTML 3.0. What
I do flame them for is because they have done somthing that HTML 3.0
does but in a different and inferior way. I don't see NCSA doing that.
>: However: Please don't spread the myth that Netscape satisfies user's
>: demands and HTML 3.0 does not.
>
>Why should I bother. HTML 3.0 is only a spec, that no one has
>implemented into a commercial-grade browser that works with IBM PC's.
Frank, you don't seem to understand me at all: You said this:
Long live _the_customer_ and the vendors that respond to what
customers want. In other words long live Microsoft and Netscape;
Companies that give customers what they need and want.
and I say the HTML 3.0 draft proposed by the working group combined
with stylesheets is closer to the customer's needs than what Netscape
and Microsoft are offering.
>: If Netscape wants to
>: introduce new tags which may or may not go into the standard, why not
>: HTML 3.0 tags, which have a pretty good chance of actually making it
>: into the final specs? I don't like Netscape inventing new tags when
>: there are already ways to do the same thing in the HTML 3.0 specs.
>
>The way life works browsers determine what standards they will
>use and we adapt. Successful companies use customer input when determining
>what their product does; IMO the HTML 3.0 spec wasn't able to do that.
And I'll repeat again: Netscape apparently does *not* use customer
input. Otherwise we would have a much more complete implementation of
HTML 3.0 and stylesheets. The problem really is that Netscape almost
has a monopoly on the browser market and that there is only little
competition from HTML 3.0 compliant browsers. Thus, the customers
don't have a choice.
> Here I'll paste in my prime directive from my list of HTML rules.
>
>1.The Customer is boss, not any theory or idea. The customer may
> be stupid, but customer is always right. This is the PRIME
> DIRECTIVE!
And once more: Netscape apparently is not following that
directive. Suppose Microsoft were to come out with a browser that is
much more HTML 3.0 compliant than Netscape and supported
stylesheets. I would argue within only weeks it would become the
dominant browser on the platforms it were available because it would
actually give the customers what they want.
Zigg
:Easy: HTML 3.0 plus stylesheets wuold solve many of their customers
:needs. So do Netscape and Microsoft give it to them? No. The customer
:just get enough to keep them from switching to a different browser.
Actually, perhaps IE and their new slew of tags might be a good thing. Anyone
noticed how all the NHTML fanatics are complaining now that IE "isn't
compatible" with NS and vice-versa? Perhaps if a few more money-hungry corps
with an existing stranglehold on the industry were to pop up with their own
proprietary tags, and people started realizing, "hey, this isn't working as
well any more!" we might, just might, see standards re-emerge.
We'll see.
--
Matt "Zigg" Behrens | "Oh, I'm stranded all alone
behr...@river.it.gvsu.edu | In the gas station of love,
======================================| And I have to use
Home: http://www2.gvsu.edu/~behrensm/ | The self-service pumps!"
Virtual Music Page: .../vmp/ | - "Weird Al" Yankovic,
a.b.s.mods FAQ: .../absm-faq/ | "One More Minute"
Sunil Mishra
\\ Marcus Edward Hennecke (mar...@leland.Stanford.EDU) wrote:
\\
\\ I'll try to be brief. For me this is a non issue, since I believe
\\ that HTML 3.0 is only a spec that was made without the input from paying
\\ customers. I'm also not convinced that a good browser can be built that
\\ is as fast as Netscape Navigator version 1.22, will run on the IBM
\\ PC and will process stylesheet information.
\\ Since no one has built one. I don't know if is possible. Hence
\\ I repeat. HTML 3.0 is just a spec.
Obviously you haven't had a look at UdiWWW. And it's free too.
It's customers like you that actually make me worry.
Sunil
Adrian Cooper
cwi...@microsoft.com (Chris Wilson) wrote:
><Newsgroup list trimmed a bit to save bandwidth>
>
>In article <4557oe$3...@bull.hkstar.net>, jo...@hkstar.com says...
>>quality innovation from companies like Netscape.
>
>As much as it pains me to reply to a sentence with two spelling errors in it,
I
>agree, at least where the rolling over for Microsoft comes in to play. If
you
>Microsoft intentionally broke any other browser in Windows 95, and Netscape
>Navigator were truly ten times better, you would be a fool. However,
contrary to
>what you imply, Microsoft is innovative. More innovative, in my opinion,
than most
>computer software companies, including Netscape. That's why I'm here - we
produce
>great software.
>
>Also, if you honestly don't see Netscape using the same kind of marketing
tactics
>that you accuse Microsoft of using, you need to look at the way they work a
little
>more closely.
>
>>done to displace them when they interfere with progress, eg. this heavy
handed
>> behaviour over security.
>
>
>>No single company can combat MS but if the Internet community, both
corporates
>>and individuals, pull together we can help companies like Netscape to
survive
>>and succeed.
>
>"Josh E. Schneider" <jsch...@ais.net> wrote:
Has it every occured that the reason Microsoft are so successful is because
they DO actually produce the best applications, and supported by the best
marketing machine and infrastructure in the business.
This anti-Microsoft movement that you suggest is at once both negative and
destructive not to mention ant-competitive. The correct way to beat Microsoft
is to produce superior products, at a lower price, with superior support and
marketing. Supporting the underdog just because they are the underdog is
totally the wrong approach. Take the latest version of Netscape Navigator for
example - that product alone is enough to guarantee Internet Explorer a lot
of extra users including myself. Internet Explorer 2.0 beta is very fast, is
SSL compatible with STT on the way, has excellent support for tables etc.. and
integrates superbly with Windows 95 and its clients - notably Exchange. The
next versions of Internet Explorer will probably be the end of Netscape if
things carry on the way they are, the only unknown being Java support. If
Microsoft include the Java client side and continue development of the product
at the current pace and back it all up with the usual marketing muscle and
other infrastructures Netscape will be history.
The test will come when users are asked to part with money for their browsers.
Anyone can capture 80% or so of the market if they give something away for
free, but when the time comes to start paying for browsers, users will rightly
critically look at what is on offer for the money - not just the product
itself but the organisation behind it as well. This being the case Netscape
have a very long way to go IMO if they are to succeed and survive.
I am not pro-Microsoft or anti-Netscape in any way, in fact I have been a
loyal Netscape user for many months, but I feel that the tide has now turned
in Microsofts favour, and the only way to turn the tide back again is not to
be negative on Microsoft but be positive on Netscape who with Java have one
final chance to retain the browser market - will they blow it? We will see.
--
Adrian.
___________________________________
Adrian Cooper | a...@enterprise.net
Enterprise PLC | http://www.enterprise.net
Leading Internet Services in the British Isles.
Cory J. Boehm
>In <45k1sf$6...@news.enterprise.net>, a...@enterprise.net (Adrian Cooper) wrote:
>> Has it every occured that the reason Microsoft are so successful is because
>> they DO actually produce the best applications,
>Yes. That's usually dispelled by trying to *use* a MicroSoft product
>for a while.
I have to give Microsfot soem credit, they make decent software, about as
good as most competting commerical products. Where Microsoft ends up
winning the game is they are willing to put of crap products (ie Word 6.0
and Dos 6.0) just to beat to competion. Until the whle Word
6.0/WordPerfect 6.0 war Mircosfot was having trouble geting to the die
hard WP users, WP 6.0 (espically WPWIN 6.0) was so bugged it was nearly
unusable, Word 6.0 had some bugs but from all accounts they got fixed a
lot faster than WP's. Now Word is running the show (ie Word 7, no WP to
compare...)
Now it looks like the next target to run into the ground is Netscape...
>As for support - I don't know. I haven't tried to use MS support until
>it caused me to swear off MS products in the late 70s. I've heard lots
>of jokes about how bad they are, but they're a big target.
having talked to lots of tech support this summer (don't ask) I can tell
you the norm is pretty much spending about an hour on hold to have
someone tell you the error message on your screen really isn't happening
and offer no useful advice. This doesn't just apply to any one vendor
but pretty much *EVERY* vendor...
>No, you take it. NetScape Navigator has all the ear marks of being an
>MS product - big, buggy, and behind the technology curve. NetScape
>emulates MicroSoft in having very good marketing for an otherwise
>mediocre product.
what I think is more frigthening than the approach Netscape is taking to
things is tha Microsoft attempted to buy Netscape as the base for
Internet Explorer however Novell had beaten to it. Imagine how evil the
world would be if that combination had happened...
--
- Cory J. Boehm - | Set up for a let down
umbo...@cc.umanitoba.ca | These things happen all the time
- Toban On-Line Editor - | But i'm not longing to explore it again
- blahness - | - Lou Barlow
Tero Paananen
>Why should I bother. HTML 3.0 is only a spec, that no one has
>implemented into a commercial-grade browser that works with IBM PC's.
HTML3.0 is "only a spec", because Netscape Communications chose to
ignore it. They could've implemented HTML3.0, but they didn't. Same applies
to MicroSoft.
_That's_ what people are complaining about (+ the fact that Netscape's
PR department is bullshitting everybody in sight).
Whoever makes the first HTML3.0 browser available for several different
platforms will be rich.
-TPP
Stephen Traub
>Hi! Does anyone how to save the background pattern in Nestscape. I know I can
>save HTML by using save command. I know I can save picture files by pressing
>right mouse button. But how can I save the background pattern in Netscape?
>
>Also, is there any quick way that I can save a web page and it's associate
>graphic files at the same time? Such one mouse click or command?
>
>Any reply will be welcome. Please reply via email since I don't read newsgroup
>frequently.
>
>
>Mac Chen
>
Although this is not very elegant and I'm sure their is a more straight forward way
to accomplish saving (kidnapping) GIF backgrounds, here is one way to do it:
Call this the "Dissecting Mozilla's Belly Method"
Open up L-view or PSP or other GIF viewing sotware and click on to the
netscape/cache directory. Here you will see .moz files. Go to the bottom of the list
of .moz files and begin opening them until u see the Background GIF u want to save
and then save it in the directory you choose as a *.gif file.
The bottom of the .moz list represents the most current html pages and included
GIF's u have viewed, so it (the GIF) u want should be at the bottom of the .moz
list of files.
Again, I'm sure there is a less kludgy way to do this?
BUT, it works!!!!
--
Thank You |>>> Steve Traub
__________|__ ------------------------------
| _ _ _ | Property Valuation Advisors (PVA)
| |_| |_| |_| | Commercial/Investment Real Estate
| _ _ _ | Appraisals in New England
| |_| |_| |_| |
| _ _ _ | E-mail: str...@shore.net
| |_| |_| |_| |
| _ _ _ | PVA's Information SuperDriveway
| |_| |_| |_| | http://www.shore.net/~straub/pva.htm
| _ __ _ | Property Valuation Monitor
| |_| | ||_| | http://www.shore.net/~straub/pvm.htm
| | | | Personal Page
------------- http://www.shore.net/~straub/inside.htm
Taylor
backround pattern in the HTLM. Then simply change from the xyz.html to the zxy.gif on the
Location: line. The gif/jpg will show up and you can the do a save as.
Also can 'steal' the gif/jpg pictures on a page by doing this or by using the right mouse
button (preferred).
I don't think there is a way to disable this. If there is a way from keeping people from doing
this someone please email me. I'm curious; I don't expect to use this information.
Danny Brands
Of course, there isn't. The backdrop and the other pics are always sent to the client.
That's why the client sees what's on your web page.
On the other hand, what seems to be the problem; I always develop my web pages after
looking at other pages. It gives me inspiration, and learns me tricks I would never
have come-up with.
Regards,
Danny
Abu Wawda
<BODY BACKGROUND="xxxx.gif"> and note the xxxx.gif part. Then open a url to:
http://whereever.the.page.was/xxxx.gif
basically, you are referencing the image. it should come up and then just go
to file/save and save it.
In article <45nmc9$h...@serv.hinet.net>, am...@hntp2.hinet.net (dadai) wrote:
A>Hi! Does anyone how to save the background pattern in Nestscape. I know I
can
A>save HTML by using save command. I know I can save picture files by pressing
A>right mouse button. But how can I save the background pattern in Netscape?
A>
A>Also, is there any quick way that I can save a web page and it's associate
A>graphic files at the same time? Such one mouse click or command?
A>
A>Any reply will be welcome. Please reply via email since I don't read
newsgroup
A>frequently.
A>
A>
A>Mac Chen
A>
.--------------------------------.
| Abu Wawda |
|--------------------------------|
| wa...@scf.usc.edu |
| http://www-scf.usc.edu/~wawda/ |
|--------------------------------|
| "The world is a comedy to |
| those who think, a tragedy to |
| to whose feel." -H. Walpole |
`--------------------------------'
Taylor
Was a dumb question wasn't it? Was thinking about it as a way to keep copyrighted stuff from
being copied. Would be like eliminating all the XEROX copier machines in the world! (I AM NOT
A PROPONENT OF EITHER!!!) I agree that looking around is the source for the best material.
dadai
Also, is there any quick way that I can save a web page and it's associate
graphic files at the same time? Such one mouse click or command?
Any reply will be welcome. Please reply via email since I don't read newsgroup
frequently.
Mac Chen
S.O.Wendel
wrote:
[snip]
:>The bottom of the .moz list represents the most current html pages and included
:>GIF's u have viewed, so it (the GIF) u want should be at the bottom of the .moz
:>list of files.
:>
:>Again, I'm sure there is a less kludgy way to do this?
Yep. Use MS Internet Explorer. It saves the GIF's as GIF's in the cache,
including the proper names for the backgrund pictures. Use AcDsee and you
can easily look through all the available pictures.
/SW
--
***************************************************************
* Svante O. Wendel -- wen...@wendel.se *
* Wendel Konsult - Data- & Organisationskonsult *
* Malmoe/Sweden *
***************************************************************
Frank McNeil
//IMO a good post about a non-issue.
: In article <45hb45$n...@shellx.best.com>, ftme...@shellx.best.com (Frank
: McNeil) wrote:
: + I'll try to be brief. For me this is a non issue, since I believe
: + that HTML 3.0 is only a spec that was made without the input from paying
: + customers.
: Gosh, with this sort of attitude, we'd still be in the dark ages
: of the net...most of the RFC's fit that description.
IMO, HTML 3.0 doesn't have the same utility as an RFC.
I can ignore HTML 3.0 and put <font size.*> in my HTML and people
using Arena can browse my pages. A lot of RFC's can't be ignored.
Frankly I think most browsers comply with most of HTML 2.0 and I would
call HTML 2.0 more than a spec, because the browser companies seem
to have gone along with most of it. This is good. OTOH HTML 3.0
just points _A_ way. It's just a spec.
: + HTML 3.0 is only a spec.
: And it does no one any good to ignore it. If you are going to ignore
: it, why bother even working on the spec? Let every browser come up
: with it's own, INCOMPATIBLE, version of HTML. Let's see if that
: satisfies your mystical consumers...thus the necessity of the spec,
: and the necessity of implementing it faithfully.
I dont' ignore it. The DTD I use is based on the HTML 3.0 DTD. However
browser companies know more than me; and they may have a reason to ignore
parts of it. I know I have good reasons to ignore parts of its DTD.
Also, the jargon phrase I use is "The Customer". The customer really
is a mystical thing to me when we are talking about browser "customers."
I don't think the "customer" is a mystical thing to Microsoft. That is why
they followed Netscape's lead and process <center> and <font.*>.
By the way, I really like how you picked up on the concept of
mystical whatever. I realize that the customer is the boss, but I usually
feel that "the customer" is a mystical management construct.
: Note followups...
So far I'm the only one that states that HTML 3.0 is just a spec and that
Netscape (and therefore HTML 2.0) is real.
frank
Stephen Traub
>On 14 Oct 1995 12:38:11 GMT, Stephen Traub <str...@mailhost.shore.net>
>wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>:>The bottom of the .moz list represents the most current html pages and included
>:>GIF's u have viewed, so it (the GIF) u want should be at the bottom of the .moz
>:>list of files.
>:>
>:>Again, I'm sure there is a less kludgy way to do this?
>
>Yep. Use MS Internet Explorer. It saves the GIF's as GIF's in the cache,
>including the proper names for the backgrund pictures. Use AcDsee and you
>can easily look through all the available pictures.
>
>
>/SW
S.O.:
Thanks for contributing a possible solution to the above problem.
What you failed to mention is that MS Internet Explorer only runs under one
operating system: Windows 95!
For Mac users and Unix users your solution would not be possible, also even for
those who run Windows 3.10, 3.11 and Windows for Work Groups, it still is not
possible.
Personally (hypothetically) I could follow your "simple" solution, however, and try
MS Explorer. That would mean, however, spending $89 for basic Windows 95 Upgrade +
$39 for the MS Internet add on package plus 8 more meg at another $400 so my
machine will run (not walk), then another $350 additional for hard disk space enough
to handle Windows 95 et al.
Don't you think this (using MS Explorer) might be a long way to go in this case to
save one step in stealing someone else's GIF ?
But on the other hand, as Arnold Swartzenager says, "no pane no gain!"
So maybe your advice is prudent?
>***************************************************************
>* Svante O. Wendel -- wen...@wendel.se *
>* Wendel Konsult - Data- & Organisationskonsult *
>* Malmoe/Sweden *
>***************************************************************
>
Mike Meyer
< Marcus Edward Hennecke (mar...@leland.Stanford.EDU) wrote:
< : stylesheets, shall we? On this newsgroup, quite a few questions appear
< : quite frequently. For example:
< I don't understand how a spec can be compared to an implementation;
< PC's.
UdiWWW, Arena and emacs-w3 in Xemacs-19.13 all run on "lowly PCs", and
have for quite a while. What more proof do you need?
<mike
Phil Leonard
[comp.infosystems.www.browsers.ms-windows] Stephen Traub
<str...@mailhost.shore.net> writes:
>Personally (hypothetically) I could follow your "simple" solution,
>however, and try MS Explorer. That would mean, however, spending $89
>for basic Windows 95 Upgrade + $39 for the MS Internet add on package
The Internet add-on with Explorer is FREE! It does not cost anything.
http://198.105.232.10/windows/ie/iexplorer.htm
phil leonard * pleo...@cybercom.net * http://cybercom.net/~pleonard
Chris Wilson
>What you failed to mention is that MS Internet Explorer only runs
>under one operating system: Windows 95!
>
>For Mac users and Unix users your solution would not be possible,
>also even for those who run Windows 3.10, 3.11 and Windows for
>Work Groups, it still is not possible.
True enough.
>Personally (hypothetically) I could follow your "simple" solution,
>however, and try MS Explorer. That would mean, however, spending $89
>for basic Windows 95 Upgrade
Yup. More than worth the money, if you ask me...
>+ $39 for the MS Internet add on package
Umm, not just to get Internet Explorer... it's downloadable from our
web site. <URL:http://www.windows.microsoft.com/windows/ie/ie.htm>
>Don't you think this (using MS Explorer) might be a long way to go in
>this case to save one step in stealing someone else's GIF ?
If that's all you're trying to do, sure... but in my opinion, Netscape's
Win 95 version is their best anyway, which evens up all the barriers you
mentioned except a download.
-Chris Wilson
Chris Wilson
>a...@enterprise.net (Adrian Cooper) wrote:
>> Has it every occured that the reason Microsoft are so successful is
>> because they DO actually produce the best applications,
>
>for a while.
Hmm. I'm sorry you feel that way... I've always thought (and I mean
always as in before I started working here) that Microsoft in general
produced pretty good products. They've had a couple of dogs, sure, but
the ratio of excellent products to mediocre products is one of the best
in the business, IMHO.
>> and supported by the best
>> marketing machine and infrastructure in the business.
>
>Marketing, yes. They manage to convince people that they don't NEED
>features that MS doesn't have, or that those features aren't important
>- at least until MS has them. At which point MS manages to convince
>people that those are "must-have" features that you couldn't get
>before MS made it available. Bleah.
Welcome to the job of marketing. *ANY* company's marketing.
>As for support - I don't know. I haven't tried to use MS support until
>it caused me to swear off MS products in the late 70s. I've heard lots
>of jokes about how bad they are, but they're a big target.
According to our reports, we have some of the quickest response and best
customer satisfaction around. Never having used it, I couldn't tell you
from personal experience... Customer support can be one of the hardest
things to grow tracking customer demand, though, and Microsoft has shown
steady growth for the entire 20 years since its inception...
>> Take the latest version of Netscape Navigator
>
>No, you take it. NetScape Navigator has all the ear marks of being an
>MS product - big, buggy, and behind the technology curve. NetScape
>emulates MicroSoft in having very good marketing for an otherwise
>mediocre product.
Heh. They do have a pretty good marketing team, now.
>I am anti-NetScape for the same reasons I am anti-MicroSoft. They seem
>more intent on capturing market share than in providing a quality
>product that I can use to solve my problems. As such, I don't see any
>intrinsic difference between a WWW dictated by N$ or M$. I do see a
>benefit in having the "browser of choice" change hands at regular
>intervals - it might force content providers to pay some attention to
>interoperability. As such, I think the best thing for the net would be
>for M$ to blow away N$ when it's released. And then for M$ to get
>blown away by someone else in 18 months, etc.
I think the best thing for the 'net is to have continuous competition -
it's always best to stay hungry so you won't get devoured yourself.
Arthur Blume
> I am anti-NetScape for the same reasons I am anti-MicroSoft. They seem
> more intent on capturing market share than in providing a quality
> product that I can use to solve my problems.
Actually, Microsoft is very interested in providing a quality product you can use to solve your problems. I can't speak for Netscape. <g>
Thanks,
Arthur Blume
MS Internet Explorer Team
Jason Crouch
<str...@mailhost.shore.net> writes
>wen...@wendel.se (S.O.Wendel) wrote:
>>On 14 Oct 1995 12:38:11 GMT, Stephen Traub <str...@mailhost.shore.net>
>>wrote:
>>
backgrounds]
>
>>:>Again, I'm sure there is a less kludgy way to do this?
>>
>>Yep. Use MS Internet Explorer. It saves the GIF's as GIF's in the cache,
>>including the proper names for the backgrund pictures. Use AcDsee and you
>>can easily look through all the available pictures.
[snip faintly pointless flamage about how Internet Explorer only
functions under win95]
Well steve, that means that Svante has provided a solution to _some_ of
the posters to this group, indeed it could be argued that the MSIE
solution is fairly relevant considering the built-in TCP/IP stack in
win95 and the dominance of M$'s OS in the desktop market.
One could also argue that his solution is also generic, since the
advanced cache manager of Mosaic 2.0, final beta -- the (snigger) comet,
also lists cache entries in their appropriate formats. So now it's an
available solution for anyone who can run Mosaic or MSIE. Futher to
this, others have proposed a similar solution, potentially prompted by
this discussion, which utilises a plug-in for Netscape (?), so that's
most of the major players and platforms catered for - no need to upgrade
anything yet. I'm guessing that LYNX users don't really need the feature
<grin> -- so that only leaves the guys waiting for a more up-to-date
port of mosaic to the platform of their choice ... rah rah amiMosaic.
Couldn't you find somewhere else to post your jolly amusing rant? Maybe
alt.kill.microsoft?
ObOntopic -- I always find it better to just roll my own backgrounds.
j.
--
http://www.gabriel.co.uk/heaven/
ps. Svante - see you in d.l ;)
I feel a really sharp knife solves most problems - D.S.
Mark Shapiro
: can use to solve your problems. I can't speak for Netscape. <g>
That's interesting, because my experiences with half a dozen different
Microsoft products has been that they do everything BUT solve my problems.
In fact, I have yet to see a stable, quality product from Microsoft.
Windows 3.0: UAE
Windows 3.1: GPF
Windows for Workgroups: GPF
Windows 95: Freeze
Windows NT: laaaaaagggg
Word for Windows: Trashed documents, MS Support claims "File was copied too
many times, or maybe the HD is fragmented."
Microsoft Mail 3.5: Installation instructions are incorrect, many things
you need to do that are never mentioned.
Microsoft Office: Does not install on a network correctly <especially Clipart>
Whoops, sorry, that's 8, not 6. My mistake.
--
Mark Shapiro (SED) msha...@explorer.csc.com
GCS d++$ H>++ g+ p? au+ a- w++(+++) v?(-) C++++ P+>++++ D
L++>+++$ E--- N+++ K->++++ !W/--- M-- V-/-- -po+ G--- n-
Y++ t- 5++ R+ !tv/ b+++ B/- e+$ h-/++ f+ u* r- 3- !y sh:-w:-
Marcus Edward Hennecke
Mike Meyer <m...@contessa.phone.net> wrote:
>In <45hb45$n...@shellx.best.com>, ftme...@shellx.best.com (Frank McNeil) wrote:
>> Marcus Edward Hennecke (mar...@leland.Stanford.EDU) wrote:
>> I'll try to be brief. For me this is a non issue, since I believe
>> that HTML 3.0 is only a spec that was made without the input from paying
>> customers.
Please, to anyone else replying in this thread: watch your
attributions! My name appears in the part above but I didn't say
anything that follows. In fact, my own opinion is exactly contrary to
what is written above. Please take my name out when you reply.
Thanks.
Mike Meyer
> : Unfortunately, you're probably right. The results of this can be
> : predicted by looking at other markets where this has happened. For
> : instance, the Unix market. Unix has lost the desktop, and is in the
> : process of losing the server market to Windows NT. I expect the same
> : thing is going to happen to the browser market - someone is going to
> : come from somewhere else and blow them away.
> I don't understand that comment, since there is no Unix-only commercial
> browser that is as fast and as reliable as Netscape.
I'm talking about markets, not just browsers.
And on my Unix boxes, pretty near *any* browsers is faster than
NetScape. Especially the unix boxes it doesn't run on.
> People in this newsgroup have mentioned that the browser for OS2 processes
> <center> but doesn't process <P align="center">.
I believe they also mentioned this is no longer the case.
> Oh and then there's
> Netscape that doesn't process align="center" in some elements that <center>
> can work on. <center> is more of a browser standard something than
> align="center" is.
Yes, the NetScape table implemenation has a bug with TABLES. It also
doesn't center the tables by default. Try finding a commercial-quality
tables implementation with this problem.
> : By your standards, that's not true. After all, there are essentially
> : no browsers that parse HTML 2.0 correctly. NetScape prior to 2.0 has
> : some really nasty fundamental flaws. With 2.0b1, they're down to some
> : minor irratations.
> There are many parts of HTML 2.0 which browsers can deal with or almost
> deal with correctly; hence I consider HTML 2.0 a standard that browser
> companies have accepted for the most part. This is good.
> ?-"Minor irratiation"
Mapping newline in attributes to nothing instead of space; not
handling comments that start with a ">" character, like so:
<-->>>>> THIS IS A COMMENT <<<<<<-->
> Netscape can't do miracles. No-one has created a fast commercial grade
> browser yet for the ms-windows 3.1+ operating system.
So? Those writing slow or low-grade browsers (like NetScape) could at
least try to follow the standards.
> Microsoft didn't disappoint me.
They haven't dissapointed me since 1975 or so. Everything from them
I've used has had the quality level I expected (i.e. - any
self-respecting undergrad wouldn't put his name on it).
> I assume you are talking about other products, such as operating systems.
Nope. OS's, MSMail, compilers, assemblers, MS-Word, and probably a few
others. Not wanting to use their OS products does limit exposure to
the rest of their software, which is another good reason for not doing
so.
> You may be right; I get the Idea you've written a few programs. However,
> I haven't written many programs so I just think Netscape doesn't need
> to complicate their job by adhering to SGML for their browser.
NetScape has *publicly* stated that they will adhere to SGML with
their browser. With 2.0, they are actually paying more than lip
service to this statement - processing most SGML comments properly,
handling quoted attributes properly, etc.
Of course, that the evidence indicates they don't have anyone working
on language design who knows even a little bit about SGML, so it'll
probably take a lot of iterations for them to get an HTML 2.0
conformant browser out.
> They
> and others may come up with better solutions to problems anyway, such
> as they way those chose not to use the SGML commenting method.
Such *won't* be HTML, by definition. Of course, HTML is not
trademarked, so you could call any random assemlage of garbage HTML.
NetScape would probably try to dispay it, even. If you deliver a
document to someone as text/html that doesn't conform to the spec, you
are lieing to people.
> : Whereas NHTML is only an implementation.
> Ha, Ha, Ha :) Good one, Mike!
Actually, that's a source of frustration. As someone working on a
browser, I only have two possible answers to the question "this
doesn't work like it does in NetScape": 1) My browser follows the
spec, your document doesn't, or 2) I'll fix it. Since there isn't even
anything as firm as a draft proposed standard for any netscape
extensions, doing #1 with a netscape extension is hard. I personally
refuse to do experiment with NetScape to figure out what thing should
do for #2. A very similar situation applies when writing *any*
application that deals with HTML.
Nothing prevents NetScape from writing up a spec for NHTML and
submitting it to the IETF (note: the IETF, *not* the HTML-WG, though
they could do that as well) for consideration as a proposed draft.
They haven't bothered to do so. Failure to provide a standard others
can follow makes their calling their extensions "Open" laughable.
> : For people who care about interoperability
> I care, but as I see it there are few formal ties between browser
> companies. Hence, lets hope Netscape, Spyglass and others[1] adhere to
> the specs that the HTML-WG group is working on. Note they aren't
> working on HTML 3.0, which is only a spec.
NetScape could have made it more likely that others would adher to the
specs if they had followed the existing drafts and existing practices
instead of using proprietary tags.
<mike
Steven Fought
Actually, Microsoft is very interested in providing a quality
product you can use to solve your problems. I can't speak for
Netscape. <g>
Oh come on, this is just silly. Whatever one thinks of Microsoft,
about 10 million people have to have a problem before Microsoft will
go about addressing it. All MS software is designed for large numbers
of people who have relatively little computing experience and aren't
interested in getting much more. MS products (like Mac products) are
beginner friendly but antagonistic to experts, who want to learn more
so they can get their work done faster. Whenever I use a Microsoft
product, whatever I'm trying to do takes about twice as long.
Steven
vkw - test
Chintan Amin
(Chris Wilson) wrote:
> m...@contessa.phone.net says...
> >a...@enterprise.net (Adrian Cooper) wrote:
> >> Has it every occured that the reason Microsoft are so successful is
> >> because they DO actually produce the best applications,
> >
> >Yes. That's usually dispelled by trying to *use* a MicroSoft product
> >for a while.
>
> Hmm. I'm sorry you feel that way... I've always thought (and I mean
> always as in before I started working here) that Microsoft in general
> produced pretty good products. They've had a couple of dogs, sure, but
> the ratio of excellent products to mediocre products is one of the best
> in the business, IMHO.
Not better than Apple's. Name one product that MS makes that is better
than the comparable product made by Apple. Not one. Win95 is probably
worse to about even with 7.5.1, the pre-emptive multitasking is great, but
only possible if you buy all new software, same with plugandplay and
memory protection. However, that is the one product mentionable in the
same breath as Apple's stuff.
>
> >As for support - I don't know. I haven't tried to use MS support until
> >it caused me to swear off MS products in the late 70s. I've heard lots
> >of jokes about how bad they are, but they're a big target.
>
> According to our reports, we have some of the quickest response and best
> customer satisfaction around. Never having used it, I couldn't tell you
> from personal experience... Customer support can be one of the hardest
> things to grow tracking customer demand, though, and Microsoft has shown
> steady growth for the entire 20 years since its inception...
>
My response to this is that the time I used it, it was helpfull but
didn't solve my problem. I had a GV Teleport conflict with Office 4.2.1,
GV told me about _Microsoft's_ fix, while the MS lady was clueless. BTW,
why don't you have a 1-800 number for tech support?
> -Chris Wilson
>
> --
> The opinions expressed in this message are my own personal views
> and do not reflect the official views of Microsoft Corporation.
yeah, right.
--
Chintan Amin ca...@grove.ufl.edu http://grove.ufl.edu/~camin/
"Whether the source of the spectral apparitions seen by defendant seller are parapsychic or psychogenic...the house is haunted as a matter of law."--Rubin, J. in _Stambovsky_v._Ackley_(169 A.D.2d 254)
Mike Meyer
> m...@contessa.phone.net says...
> >> Has it every occured that the reason Microsoft are so successful is
> >> because they DO actually produce the best applications,
> >for a while.
> Hmm. I'm sorry you feel that way... I've always thought (and I mean
> always as in before I started working here) that Microsoft in general
> produced pretty good products.
So let me relate the latest (and ongoing) tale. Nuts - someone may
even have a workable solution. Someone might even find a solution.
One of my clients has settled on MSMail as it's corporate desktop mail
box. As a contractor, I'm pretty much _required_ to have an MSMail
maildrop. Since it doesn't run on the platform I have to have to
fullfill my contract, I wind up with two boxes on my desk. Since this
also provides a place to run NetScape where it won't interfere with my
work, this is a mixed curse. However, I don't have a box that MS
supports at home, and MS and interoperability appear to be complete
strangers. Since I telecommute the majority of the time, this makes
MSMail nearly useless. It's not unusual to find messages that are now
out of date because someone found the MSMaildrop and used it. It would
probably be better if I didn't have the maildrop at all - then people
would try calling me, and either get me or a message telling them how
to get me if they're in a hurry.
I can think of three solutions that even a mediocre product would
provide:
1) Using an open standard so I can use my platform of choice.
2) Some way of forwarding mail (if it exists, no one can find it).
3) Some method of remote operation via standard protocols.
Every mail system I've used in the past 10 years has provided at least
one of the three, and usually all three. Except MSMail.
Even the bad mail systems I recall from over 10 years ago had a method
to make things at least palatable:
4) Some method to autoreply to all mail, so I can tell people where to
send mail if they need it dealt with in a timely manner.
To add insult to injury, it crashes the Mac at irregular intervals.
The response from the local MSMail tech support people is "Yeah, it
does that."
This is pretty typical of *all* my experiences with MS products. They
can't do the job at hand. The facilities I'm used to having in even
poor tools to do the job aren't there. And the silly things crash at
unexpected - and usually inconvenient - times.
I'll confess that I have little or no experience with Windows or Mac
products in general. It could well be that MS *does* produce some of
the best products for those markets. This is a scary thought, and goes
a long way to explain how a screen saver could be one of the best
selling products on those platforms.
> >Marketing, yes. They manage to convince people that they don't NEED
> >features that MS doesn't have, or that those features aren't important
> >- at least until MS has them. At which point MS manages to convince
> >people that those are "must-have" features that you couldn't get
> >before MS made it available. Bleah.
> Welcome to the job of marketing. *ANY* company's marketing.
Like I said - they have a good marketing department. The "bleah" is
because people *buy* the line of utter hooey that it's the marketing
department's job to produce.
<mike
grgreen
>
>Hi! Does anyone how to save the background pattern in Nestscape. I know I can
>save HTML by using save command. I know I can save picture files by pressing
>right mouse button. But how can I save the background pattern in Netscape?
VIew Source and make a note of the filename and location of the tiled image.
Then enter this URL on the Netscape URL line and ! there it is.
Then simply save it to your local disk.
Michael Shields
Frank McNeil <ftme...@shellx.best.com> wrote:
> Of course then you can show that Netscape is moving towards SGML conformity,
> and you'd win that point. I like their simple commenting method of only
> allowing <!-- to start a comment and --> to end a comment. It means I
> don't have to worry about using "--" in a comment.
Yes, you do, because some other browsers will do it the real SGML way.
--
Shields.
Arjun Ray
Frank McNeil <ftme...@shellx.best.com> wrote:
>Mike Meyer (m...@contessa.phone.net) wrote:
>: In <45hb45$n...@shellx.best.com>, ftme...@shellx.best.com
>: (Frank McNeil) wrote:
>
>: > why Netscape's refusal to use the SGML commenting
>: > method is good [SGML comments start and end with "--", hence they can't
>: > be commented out with the SGML comment.].
>
>: This wouldn't be nearly so painfull if certain lackwits hadn't started
>: encouragin people to put content-producing constructs in comments.
>
>O.K.
Really, you agree? Hmm...
>: Of course, people who know even a little bit about SGML also know how
>: to make large sections of nearly arbitrary text - including comments -
>: not be processed. Unfortunately, browser authors either aren't aware
>: of or have chosen not to implement those mechanisms.
>
>You may be right; I get the Idea you've written a few programs. However,
>I haven't written many programs so I just think Netscape doesn't need
>to complicate their job by adhering to SGML for their browser.
No, you're just happy that Netscape can complicate everybody else's
job by deliberately breaking SGML in their browser.
>They
>and others may come up with better solutions to problems anyway, such
>as they way those chose not to use the SGML commenting method.
Yes, RTFM-less lackwits might stumble onto better solutions. You're
welcome to hold your breath.
>: For people who care about
>: interoperability (and people on the internet come in two flavors -
>: those who care about interoperability, and those who haven't figured
>: out they care yet) the latter is a far better thing to have than the
>: former.
>
>I care,
No you don't. If you did, you wouldn't approve of this new bizarre
twist on comment syntax. Exactly how do propose to have interoperability
between SGML systems and Netscape's gospel on comment syntax?
>but as I see it there are few formal ties between browser
>companies. Hence, lets hope Netscape, Spyglass and others[1] adhere to
>the specs that the HTML-WG group is working on.
Will you please make up your mind which side of the mouth you
really want to speak out of? Thank You.
Cheers,
ar
Arjun Ray
Marcus Edward Hennecke <mar...@leland.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
>It may seem that a Web browser that will only ever see HTML does not
>need to have a full SGML parser. However, Netscape currently is bitten
>quite badly by the fact that their parser is so non-conforming. Look
>at their current LiveScript proposal. LiveScript is Netscape's way of
>putting scripts right in the middle of an HTML document. The language
>is based on Java, i.e. it is very C++ like. The problem now is how
>does one put Java in a document such that it won't show on a regular
>browser?
>
>So you think Netscape will adhere to SGML anytime in the future? Well,
>the solution they came up with is so incompatible with SGML, I could
>almost puke. In fact, it *forces* authors to write non-compliant
>documents. Here is the URL:
>
>http://home.mcom.com/comprod/products/navigator/version_2.0/script/script_info
>
>And here is the relevant quote:
There was a "slight" modification from the first version of this page,
on which much of the discussion in the HTML WG was based...
> Script containers can be placed anywhere in the HTML page. The basic
> form of a Script Container is:
>
> <SCRIPT LANGUAGE="language" SRC=url >
>
> Any information going here will be seen (!) by non-Script-aware
> clients. It is recommended that no information go here.
>
> <!-- --> As a new convention, any information on this line is ignored
> by SCRIPT-aware clients.
>
> <!--
>
> Here goes information that will not be seen by non-Script-aware
> clients. This is where a majority of script functions go.
>
> <!-- --> This construct also ends a Script comment block.
This---^
dash wasn't there in the original version.
> </SCRIPT>
>
> Script data may be placed inside comment fields. This is recommended
> for backwards compatibility. Any Script data placed outside the
> comment field will be visibly displayed to the user on
> non-Script-aware clients.
>
>And here my comments:
>
>So, any information following the first <!-- --> is ignored?
>What???!!? Can you show me a DTD for this? How is a parser to ignore
>any text that is neither inside a comment nor inside any kind of
>markup that might tell me to ignore it (similar to <FIG>)?
>
>In SGML, comments are enclosed within -- and --. That is, if I have
>
><!-- some script data <!-- -->
>
>Then I have opened a comment, closed it again and opened another
>one. Everything thereafter will be ignored since I have never closed
>that comment again! Now, it is quite possible that this is just an
>error in the documentation and that a simple --> closes the script
>again.
Apparently not. This bizarre new syntax says that the script data
starts after a `<!--' *not* followed by ` -->', and continues until
a `<!-- -->' ends the block.
In it's own clueless way, this is rather clever. Consider this:
<SCRIPT LANGUAGE="KewlJive">
Get with the Script, 100Zer!!
<!-- -->
<!--
lots of KewlJive
<!-- -->
</SCRIPT>
And then, consider how a BNF-challenged parser faithfully emulating
Netscape is supposed to handle "comments": having found a `<!--',
scan forward for `-->'. Mission accomplished. Meanwhile, Netscape's
mondo-kewl parser scans forward for `<!-- -->', a construct that
isn't in LiveScript...
>However, what do you do if you have a stray "i--" in there?
SGML? The Reference Concrete Syntax? Well, there's this:
<URL:http://www.cithep.caltech.edu/~kelsey/netscape_sgml.html>
>Then the -- will close the comment and we're back to invalid
>markup. Or how about "while (i-->0)"?
As you can see, they actually *thought* about that one! :-)
>That will actually break a lot of browsers.
Yes, the ones that don't subscribe to Netscape's brain-dead take
on comment syntax. Those that do are expected to survive nicely.
>Of course, the worst offense is to put any kind of interpretable data
>inside a comment in the first place. The parser strips out all
>comments, so any application using an SGML compliant parser will not
>be able to see them. The whole idea of live data inside comments is
>quite hideous.
>
>The funny thing is that there are SGML compliant ways to include
>arbitrary text in an HTML document. Processing instructions might be
>one way to do it:
>[ Processing Instructions and Attribute Value Literals ]
>IMHO, the best way to avoid this whole mess would be via
>
><script src="some_url">
which seems to duplicate the functionality of the <EMBED> proposal.
>I recommend reading the discussion going on in the working group right
>now on this very topic. See
>
>http://www.acl.lanl.gov/HTML_WG/html-wg-95q4.messages/
I endorse this strongly. Anyone who wants to know the pros and cons
should follow this discussion closely. The "Script in a Comment"
concoction is a crock.
>It all started with
>
>http://www.acl.lanl.gov/HTML_WG/html-wg-95q4.messages/0169.html
Cheers,
ar
Frank McNeil
: In <45vkcl$b...@shellx.best.com>, ftme...@shellx.best.com (Frank McNeil) wrote:
: > I don't think Netscape mentioned that they implement that kind of
: > centering in their documentation.
: They said they were implementing the HTML 3.0 table spec. That they
: didn't do so is a bug. I don't remember if I ever tested
: "BORDER=BORDER" to see if they treated it like "BORDER=0" or not
: (which would also be a bug).
: > Good, my default DTD doesn't allow <center>%text</center>
: Yes, but you use it, and people who learn HTML by example (which is
: sort of like learning C by reading programs that have never been fed
: to a compiler), and by using <center> you bear partial responsibility
: for pages like <URL:http://pantheon.cis.yale.edu/~jharris/previous.html>.
I use it with a very few of my files, only because I didn't have time to
write a perl script to use <P Align="Center">. I may only use that construct
less than 10 times. I'd have to validate a directory that has 190+
files to find out. IMO, it doesn't matter. Essentially <center> is
a part of the set of tags that leading browsers can process.
NOW, about the site I will probably browse (unless it takes to long
to load):
I wish you would have mentioned what that site does that is wrong. When
I think of the best Web Site I"ve ever sceen or browsed I think of a site
that uses a lot of <CENTER> tags where I wouldn't.
: > IMO, things from the HTML 3.0 spec aren't part of a standard, while things
: > that are part of HTML 2.0 are part of a standard. Hence I consider this
: > a bug.
: > <UL><LI><P>text</P></li><li>text</ul>
: > <UL><LI><P>text </li><li>text</ul>
I'll paste in something from a test file using Netscape 1.22, which is the
version I currently have loaded.
<UL><LI><P>text1</P></LI><LI>text2</UL>text3
<hr>
<UL><LI><P>text1<LI>text2</UL>text3
produces
text1
text2
text3
text1
text2
text3
---
Note that the </P> before <LI> produce an extra newline.
For me that is a bug and one of the reasons I never use a DTD that
allows end-tag P minimization. [Oh, and I validate _all_ web pages
I transfer from off-line to on-line.]
: Huh? Both of those are perfectly valid according to HTML 2.0 as
: accepted by the IESG. Or are you referring to some browsers
: implementation of these things, which can be rather strange?
I mention above what I think is a bug, there is another one that
Mike K. showed me in this group involving P and HR. I haven't tested
it agains Netscape version 2.0 yet.
: > : Mapping newline in attributes to nothing instead of space;
: > I'll have to test that one. In general I'm so afraid of other browsers that
: > I always try to remember to use a space after the newline.
: > <A href="file.html">Read
: > The SGML Handbook</A>
: > You seem to have just stated that Netscape would butcher this.
: No, I said "newlines in attributes", not arbitrary newlines. What
: NetScape butchers is:
Yes, I agree you meant what you said, which is why I commented. I wanted
to make sure. Since the Netscape behavior you mentioned helps people using
it as a browser, rather than as something to develop pages.
: <A href="file
: .html">Read The SGML Handbook</A>
: which it treats exactly like:
: > <A href="file.html">Read
: > The SGML Handbook</A>
: which (since they're the only browser I know of with this bug) causes
: the resulting link works in netscape and nowhere else.
Personally I wish the Netscape I use to create and browse my own pages
didn't do that, but I think it is a feature, similar to things like
three <BR>'s (text1<br><br><br>text2).
: > : <-->>>>> THIS IS A COMMENT <<<<<<-->
: > The only way a real problem can occur is if the Netscape comment method is
: > not a subset of the SGML comment method. Then we have to ask, how often is
: > that likely to occur.
: You're correct - their handling is not a subset of the SGML commenting
: method. Doing it right would probably be faster than what they are
: doing now, though I haven't seen the code. They treat this string
: "<-->" as a stand-alone comment, instead of the start of a comment.
Oh, I didn't know that; I'll test it. Here is what their comments about
comment state.
The Netscape Navigator should now properly deal with the awful
HTML comment sequence. This should be:
<!-- Comment here -->
<!-- starts a comment and --> ends one. I think it's kind of neat, because
I don't know how to comment out "--" in the comments I put in DTD's.
: > Of course then you can show that Netscape is moving towards SGML conformity,
: > and you'd win that point. I like their simple commenting method of only
: > allowing <!-- to start a comment and --> to end a comment. It means I
: > don't have to worry about using "--" in a comment.
: It also means you can't comment out a comment (which you seemed
: worried aobut earlier). But yeah, SGML comments are ugly in the
: context of HTML. However, HTML only deal with one of the three
: contexts in SGML. In the other two, the SGML commenting mechanism
: makes perfect sense.
Thanks Mike
: > : They haven't dissapointed me since 1975 or so. Everything from them
: > : I've used has had the quality level I expected (i.e. - any
: > : self-respecting undergrad wouldn't put his name on it).
: > What is the sense of saying things like that when a product like Excel
: > exist?
: Hmm - the one time I tried to use Excel recently, it failed pretty
: miserably. Seems like it doesn't have any facility to swap parts of
: it's data to disk when it runs out of ram. While this might not be as
: bad as I said (after all, this is one of their better products,
: right?), it's clearly not a high-quality product.
I think it is, since I compare it to other speadsheets I've used and
BalerXe. I haven't used Lotus or Quatro Pro recently. I assume they still
don't have a good proceedural language and you've got to write DLL's
or use a bunch of "tricks" to get a good application.
: > : NetScape has *publicly* stated that they will adhere to SGML with
: > O.K. if you say so. Personally I don't believe anything a PR machine states
: > unless they can be successfully sued if their statement is false.
: I tend to give most companies the benefit of the doubt. NetScape's
: history causes me to not do so for them - until their actions prove
: it. With 2.0b1 it looks like they are taking action instead of just
: making words.
O.K., IMO, HTML 3.0 conformaty makes good ad-copy.
: > What if NHTML simply contains the HTML 2.0+ standard in the future. IMO,
: > good web page authors will only use NHTML when forced to.
: That can't happen until somebody takes on the job of writing a spec
: for NHTML and submitting it to a body that stamps open standards. The
: HTML-WG has already provided drafts with better mechanisms. It's
: pretty clear that NetScape's competition doesn't have an interest in
: doing this. NetScape doesn't seem interested - they haven't bothered
: to submit the specs they've written (SSL, cookies) to the IETF (though
: they may be taking routes that aren't visible to the public). Who's
: left who's going to write the spec?
I don't know why they should. If I can use a DTD that validates an HTML
file with Netscape-only tags and then modify the DTD to do _only_ what
I want it to do, so can other people. Personally, I'd rather Netscape
do what they do best, and forget the spec stuff. Let the people that
really understand SGML and hopefully a little typography deal with the
specifications that the world will focus on.
: > : Nothing prevents NetScape from writing up a spec for NHTML and
: > : submitting it to the IETF (note: the IETF, *not* the HTML-WG, though
: > : they could do that as well) for consideration as a proposed draft.
: > Time, money and the fact that it could be a distraction.
: How about because not having a spec provides them an advantage over
: their competition. Once there is a spec, their competition can write a
: compliant browser. Without it, there's no way to know that your
: browser is compliant - so you're never really done.
Ha, Ha, Ha. :)
That's one way of looking at it.
: > You may have also implied that there exist comercial-grade HTML 3.0
: > browsers and _possibly_ that Netscape's falure to implement
: > <table align ="center<"> is a bug.
: No, I *said* it was a bug. The document they claimed to have followed
: (and largely did) says tables should behave that way. Tables don't.
: Ergo, it's a bug. They can cop out and claim it's a documentation bug,
: but it's still a bug.
Their documentation says the following about ALIGN
"
ALIGN
If appearing inside a CAPTION it controls whether the caption
appears above or below the table, and can have the values top or
bottom, defaulting to top.
If appearing inside a TR, TH, or TD it controls whether text
inside the table cell(s) is aligned to the left side of the cell,
the right side of the cell, or centered within the cell. Values
are left, center, and right.
"
They didn't say anything about an align attribute for TABLE.
: You apparently believe NetScape is a "commercial-grade" browser. I
: find it mostly unusable for a number of reasons. The browsers that I
: do use accept large chunks of HTML 3.0 and style sheets (and run on a
: "lowly PC").
I state over and over there is no such animal. [That doesn't make so.]
I also think NSCA and others are commercial-grade. W3-emacs was to
slow for me off-line, UDIwww and Arena always crashed.
: If you can define what you mean by "commercial-grade"
: browser, then so can I. Somehow, I suspect that there isn't a single
: browser that we would both define as "commercial-grade".
For me HTML 3.0 browsing is a waste of time due to the Boddhisattva
nature of writing WEB pages for all browsers.
frank
Mike Meyer
> I don't think Netscape mentioned that they implement that kind of
> centering in their documentation.
They said they were implementing the HTML 3.0 table spec. That they
didn't do so is a bug. I don't remember if I ever tested
"BORDER=BORDER" to see if they treated it like "BORDER=0" or not
(which would also be a bug).
> Good, my default DTD doesn't allow <center>%text</center>
Yes, but you use it, and people who learn HTML by example (which is
sort of like learning C by reading programs that have never been fed
to a compiler), and by using <center> you bear partial responsibility
for pages like <URL:http://pantheon.cis.yale.edu/~jharris/previous.html>.
> IMO, things from the HTML 3.0 spec aren't part of a standard, while things
> that are part of HTML 2.0 are part of a standard. Hence I consider this
> a bug.
> <UL><LI><P>text</P></li><li>text</ul>
> <UL><LI><P>text </li><li>text</ul>
Huh? Both of those are perfectly valid according to HTML 2.0 as
accepted by the IESG. Or are you referring to some browsers
implementation of these things, which can be rather strange?
> : Mapping newline in attributes to nothing instead of space;
> I'll have to test that one. In general I'm so afraid of other browsers that
> I always try to remember to use a space after the newline.
> <A href="file.html">Read
> The SGML Handbook</A>
> You seem to have just stated that Netscape would butcher this.
No, I said "newlines in attributes", not arbitrary newlines. What
NetScape butchers is:
<A href="file
.html">Read The SGML Handbook</A>
which it treats exactly like:
> <A href="file.html">Read
> The SGML Handbook</A>
which (since they're the only browser I know of with this bug) causes
the resulting link works in netscape and nowhere else.
> : <-->>>>> THIS IS A COMMENT <<<<<<-->
> The only way a real problem can occur is if the Netscape comment method is
> not a subset of the SGML comment method. Then we have to ask, how often is
> that likely to occur.
You're correct - their handling is not a subset of the SGML commenting
method. Doing it right would probably be faster than what they are
doing now, though I haven't seen the code. They treat this string
"<-->" as a stand-alone comment, instead of the start of a comment.
> Of course then you can show that Netscape is moving towards SGML conformity,
> and you'd win that point. I like their simple commenting method of only
> allowing <!-- to start a comment and --> to end a comment. It means I
> don't have to worry about using "--" in a comment.
It also means you can't comment out a comment (which you seemed
worried aobut earlier). But yeah, SGML comments are ugly in the
context of HTML. However, HTML only deal with one of the three
contexts in SGML. In the other two, the SGML commenting mechanism
makes perfect sense.
> : They haven't dissapointed me since 1975 or so. Everything from them
> : I've used has had the quality level I expected (i.e. - any
> : self-respecting undergrad wouldn't put his name on it).
> What is the sense of saying things like that when a product like Excel
> exist?
Hmm - the one time I tried to use Excel recently, it failed pretty
miserably. Seems like it doesn't have any facility to swap parts of
it's data to disk when it runs out of ram. While this might not be as
bad as I said (after all, this is one of their better products,
right?), it's clearly not a high-quality product.
> : NetScape has *publicly* stated that they will adhere to SGML with
> O.K. if you say so. Personally I don't believe anything a PR machine states
> unless they can be successfully sued if their statement is false.
I tend to give most companies the benefit of the doubt. NetScape's
history causes me to not do so for them - until their actions prove
it. With 2.0b1 it looks like they are taking action instead of just
making words.
> What if NHTML simply contains the HTML 2.0+ standard in the future. IMO,
> good web page authors will only use NHTML when forced to.
That can't happen until somebody takes on the job of writing a spec
for NHTML and submitting it to a body that stamps open standards. The
HTML-WG has already provided drafts with better mechanisms. It's
pretty clear that NetScape's competition doesn't have an interest in
doing this. NetScape doesn't seem interested - they haven't bothered
to submit the specs they've written (SSL, cookies) to the IETF (though
they may be taking routes that aren't visible to the public). Who's
left who's going to write the spec?
> : Nothing prevents NetScape from writing up a spec for NHTML and
> : submitting it to the IETF (note: the IETF, *not* the HTML-WG, though
> : they could do that as well) for consideration as a proposed draft.
> Time, money and the fact that it could be a distraction.
How about because not having a spec provides them an advantage over
their competition. Once there is a spec, their competition can write a
compliant browser. Without it, there's no way to know that your
browser is compliant - so you're never really done.
> You may have also implied that there exist comercial-grade HTML 3.0
> browsers and _possibly_ that Netscape's falure to implement
> <table align ="center<"> is a bug.
No, I *said* it was a bug. The document they claimed to have followed
(and largely did) says tables should behave that way. Tables don't.
Ergo, it's a bug. They can cop out and claim it's a documentation bug,
but it's still a bug.
You apparently believe NetScape is a "commercial-grade" browser. I
find it mostly unusable for a number of reasons. The browsers that I
do use accept large chunks of HTML 3.0 and style sheets (and run on a
"lowly PC"). If you can define what you mean by "commercial-grade"
browser, then so can I. Somehow, I suspect that there isn't a single
browser that we would both define as "commercial-grade".
<mike
Ray A. Jones
: > I am anti-NetScape for the same reasons I am anti-MicroSoft. They seem
: > more intent on capturing market share than in providing a quality
: > product that I can use to solve my problems.
: Actually, Microsoft is very interested in providing a quality product you can use to solve your problems. I can't speak for Netscape. <g>
On first read, I thought this was a joke (Microsoft is very interested in
providing a quality product). Then I saw that Arthur is from Microsoft.
Sorry, Arthur, we have seen the quality of Microsoft's products for years
and we know better.
: Thanks,
: Arthur Blume
: MS Internet Explorer Team
--
INTERNET: r...@Celestial.COM Ray A. Jones; Celestial Systems, Inc.
URL: http://www.celestial.com One Mercer Plaza, Suite S100
Mercer Island, WA 98040; (206) 236-1676
Manufacturer of InterRack (Internet-in-a-Rack), a full turn-key
system, including all the hardware, software, installation, setup, training
and support for businesses and Internet Service Providers
Frank McNeil
: In article <45svnf$c...@shellx.best.com>,
: Frank McNeil <ftme...@shellx.best.com> wrote:
: >Mike Meyer (m...@contessa.phone.net) wrote:
: >: In <45hb45$n...@shellx.best.com>, ftme...@shellx.best.com
: >: (Frank McNeil) wrote:
: >
[deleted]
: >: Of course, people who know even a little bit about SGML also know how
: >: to make large sections of nearly arbitrary text - including comments -
: >: not be processed. Unfortunately, browser authors either aren't aware
: >: of or have chosen not to implement those mechanisms.
: >
: >You may be right; I get the Idea you've written a few programs. However,
: >I haven't written many programs so I just think Netscape doesn't need
: >to complicate their job by adhering to SGML for their browser.
: No, you're just happy that Netscape can complicate everybody else's
: job by deliberately breaking SGML in their browser.
I wouldn't know, I don't know much about SGML.
I do believe the Netscape commenting method is better for HTML, and
I view its inability to process ' the way Unix can as a way they
can improve their product.
: >They
: >and others may come up with better solutions to problems anyway, such
: >as they way those chose not to use the SGML commenting method.
: Yes, RTFM-less lackwits might stumble onto better solutions. You're
: welcome to hold your breath.
Ha, Ha, Ha :)
IMO, Netscape initially has been creating a browser for RTFM-less customers.
IMO, many ms-windows (not Unix) software vendors do this.
This doesn't mean that they (Netscape Company WORKERS) don't RTFM.
: >: For people who care about
: >: interoperability (and people on the internet come in two flavors -
: >: those who care about interoperability, and those who haven't figured
: >: out they care yet) the latter is a far better thing to have than the
: >: former.
: >
: >I care,
Of course I care; I'm lazy and only have time to learn so much. I don't
have time to write bridging scripts even if they are simple. [For example,
after I use HoTMetaL PRO 2.0 I run a script to clean up the damage it
does to browser-HTML I use with nsgmls.exe]
: No you don't. If you did, you wouldn't approve of this new bizarre
: twist on comment syntax. Exactly how do propose to have interoperability
: between SGML systems and Netscape's gospel on comment syntax?
I don't propose and I don't think about it. I assume at some time in the
future I may have to use bridging scripts.
I don't see the Need for it yet.
SGML isn't a real vital part of the WEB yet. SGML doesn't rule the WEB,
but SGML tools like nsgmls.exe are very useful to control the browsers-HTML
we use. Most web documents don't need SGML longterm storage. Browser-HTML
is good enough. Note I said Browser-HTML and not NHTML since other
leading browsers are following Netscape and implementing tags like
<center> and <font size.*>
SP (nsgmls.exe) by James Clark is at http://www.jclark.com/sp.html.
: >but as I see it there are few formal ties between browser
: >companies. Hence, lets hope Netscape, Spyglass and others[1] adhere to
: >the specs that the HTML-WG group is working on.
: Will you please make up your mind which side of the mouth you
: really want to speak out of? Thank You.
I don't think there are two sides of the issue; I also think the
content/presentation arguments are usually bogus. People working towards
an HTML subset of browser-HTML that is SGML conformant are producing
something that those who restrict their browser-HTML to the subset
can use. Those like myself that use some of the browser-HTML that
Netscape introduced can easily modify a DTD and use nsgmls.exe to
control the HTML we use. SGML is good and so is browser-HTML.
Also, browser companies so far haven't ignored what you
aptly called the "RTFM-less." Most ms-windows software Companies have
learned that it is best to not ignore us. <center> is a good
HTML-browser tag and <FONT SIZE.*> was a needed HTML-browser tag.
Thanks-for-your-SGML-related-posts-in-the-past and all the best,
Frank
Frank McNeil
ftme...@beset.com
Big Dave Schmitt
: smi...@gaia.cc.gatech.edu (Sunil Mishra) wrote:
:
: >Obviously you haven't had a look at UdiWWW. And it's free too.
: >It's customers like you that actually make me worry.
: >Sunil
: Could you please tell me an FTP site where I can obtain this software
: for use on my PC? I'll gladly give up Netscape for a functional
: freeware WWW browser that is HTML 3.0 compliant....
The Website is <URL:http://www.uni-ulm.de/~richter/udiwww/index.htm>
The FTP site is <URL:ftp://ftp.rz.uni-ulm.de/pub/systems/UdiWWW/>
Note that it has it's bugs and doesn't do all of HTML 3.0 yet, but it
still does quite a bit more than most other browsers.
-Dave
--
Big Dave Schmitt University of Md Baltimore County (__)
Math major / CS minor / UCS Client Services (oo)------\
dsc...@umbc.edu http://umbc.edu/%7Edschmi1/ \/ | \
Don't blame UMBC or UCS for the opinions stated above. ||---w|| *
Alan J Flavell
>for use on my PC? I'll gladly give up Netscape for a functional
>freeware WWW browser that is HTML 3.0 compliant....
_I_ think you ought to give it a try. However, I can't resist pointing
out that this is a WWW group: the WWW gives you access to some
splendid search tools, you really didn't have to wait for some human
(or possibly martian...) volunteer to point you at
http://www.uni-ulm.de/%7Erichter/
Why did you say "FTP site"? Even Netscape will download this software
for you - it doesn't have a blacklist ;-)
best regards
Chris Wilson
>Can you tell us the story behind the
>introduction of the hilarious tag <font face>?
Do you just find <font face=Arial> hilarious, or do you find hilarity in
<font size=+3> also?
>Has anyone of you heard of HTML3?
Umm, yes.
>Do any of you know why WWW was created?
Well, yeah. Should I bother recapping TimBL's past (not to mention my
own) here? I think not.
>Has anyone of you seen WWW before?
Every day.
Jurgen Botz
Mark Shapiro <msha...@csc.com> wrote:
>Word for Windows: Trashed documents, MS Support claims "File was copied too
~~~~~~~~~~
This is rich... the official explanation from MS tech-support: bitrot!
MS tech-support is perpetuating fairy-tales and superstition as an
apology for shoddy quality. Reeeal good.
--
Jurgen Botz, jb...@mtholyoke.edu C:\ONGRATNS.W95!
"Unix? What's that? Is that like Linux?"
Jurgen Botz
Arthur Blume <arth...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>Actually, Microsoft is very interested in providing a quality product
>you can use to solve your problems. I can't speak for Netscape. <g>
Then why didn't they "fix" DOS 10 years ago? Nearly 15 years MS-DOS
didn't significantly improve. Yeah, some of the most obvious and
crippeling limitations were modified, but essentially it remained the
same operating system while hardware improved by 3 orders of
magnitude (1000x the CPU speed, 1000x the memory, 1000x the disk space,
but running the same old dog of an OS... and even calling it an "OS"
is being nice).
Up until now MS-DOS was the bedrock of MS's success... Bill got rich
because the consumer had no practical alternative, and all because
IBM made a stupid decission 15 years ago.
Dave Carter
ftme...@shell1.best.com (Frank McNeil) writes
|>
|> I can rant to.
|>
|> I think I dislike commies and bureaucrats (people who follow specs no matter
|> what the say). Long live _the_customer_ and the vendors that respond to what
|> customers want. In other words long live Microsoft and Netscape; Companies
|> that give customers what they need and want.
|>
|> frank
Would you extend this argument to, say, the voltage of the electrical
supply to your home?? I wouldn't like an unregulated market in that.
Dave Carter
Sjoera Nas
>Yep. Use MS Internet Explorer. It saves the GIF's as GIF's in the cache,
>including the proper names for the backgrund pictures. Use AcDsee and you
>can easily look through all the available pictures.
Alternatively, use the prog called Media Center by JASC. This is shareware. It
will scan your cache for you, showing all the pix, allowing you to save them
in different formats.
JM
kev...@panix.com
Good Point Dave, but if companies like MS and Netscape don't do their
extenstions then things would progress at a snail pace.
Remeber, extensions somtimes turn into standards. The extensions
alow companies to try differnt things and see if the are excepted
by the Web. So far Netscape is doing the best. My opinion is that
Netscape will dominate, just like windows. My site supports
HTML 2.0 and Enhanced Netscape 2.0 so check it out!
Best Regards,
Kevin Burrowes
http://xpresslink.com
Marcus Edward Hennecke
<kev...@panix.com> wrote:
>Good Point Dave, but if companies like MS and Netscape don't do their
>extenstions then things would progress at a snail pace.
Sigh. Why does this myth keep coming up?
HTML 3.0 (then called HTML+) was first introduced November 1993, eight
months before Netscape came into existence. The first proposal has
experienced a number of refinements based on a lot of feedback from
numerous individuals. The last HTML 3.0 draft proposal came out March
28 this year.
Now this draft is almost 7 months old and do we see Netscape or
Microsoft take any advantage of any of the HTML 3.0 that was proposed?
Hardly. Some of the tables, a little <sup> and <sub>, some alignment,
that's about it. No FIG, no new entities, no style sheets,
nothing. Instead, they introduce their own tags, which either do the
same as the corresponding HTML 3.0 / style sheets, but in a much less
powerful way (e.g. <FONT>) or do nothing that is even remotely as
useful as any HTML 3.0 tag (e.g. <BLINK>). How many times can a
question on this newsgroup be answered with "easy with HTML 3.0, but
not with Netscape"? The only extensions that Netscape has introduced
that can really compete are frames.
So, it seems to me that *because* companies like MS and Netscape do
their extenstions things progress at a snail pace. Just take a look at
some style sheet enhanced pages with a browser that supports style
sheets. You could blow any Netscape page out of the water easily.
>Remeber, extensions somtimes turn into standards.
Sometimes that happens. But that's the wrong way. Standards should
turn into extensions.
> The extensions
>alow companies to try differnt things and see if the are excepted
>by the Web.
So why not HTML 3.0 and style sheets?
> My site supports
>HTML 2.0 and Enhanced Netscape 2.0 so check it out!
Sample pages (with screen dumps, so you don't need a style sheet
supporting browser to see them) can be viewed at:
http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~tzoq/HTML3/
http://www.w3.org/hypertext/WWW/Style/css/pres3/Overview.html
Jacqui Caren
Chris Wilson <cwi...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>Christian.B...@udac.se says...
>>Can you tell us the story behind the
>>introduction of the hilarious tag <font face>?
>
>Do you just find <font face=Arial> hilarious, or do you find hilarity in
><font size=+3> also?
>>Has anyone of you heard of HTML3?
>
>Umm, yes.
Well, is that what MS development call a constructive
informative response. Answers like this just waste bandwidth...
>>Do any of you know why WWW was created?
>
>Well, yeah. Should I bother recapping TimBL's past (not to mention my
>own) here? I think not.
The question was about the WWW and its goals not about your
employment history.
Anyway, what is wrong with posting your employment history?
I will if you will. :-)
GenRed - 2 years - ECAD systems development.
Cray Research - 4 years Network and Comms SWD OSI/X.400/...
Paul Ingram Group - 3+ years - Software Consultancy
prog languages are a speciality (hobby) collect old books
such as the fortran red book and djkstra's "A discipline
of programming". Proficient in about 20-30 languages.
Anyone remember Jovial (jules own version of algol?),
typed-BNF or the flexowriter character set?
I currently specialise in WWW RDBMS integration mainly
for private network (corporate) applications, using
C, perl and perl5. The company also works closely with
Corsellis Montford (http://www.cm-net.com/) who provide
Design skills and a web presence for WWW customers.
I also develop MIS systems based around Notes and
Oracle/Ingres, and work on telecoms projects such as
billing engines.
Anyway, the question was about the WWW, to try and find out
if the MS developers know anything about the WWW ethic.
I assume from your answer that you feel threatened when
asked to justify MSIE HTML extensions in a public forum.
So the question is -
Does MS intend to develop a proprietary HTML-alike only
for MS sofwtare customers, effectively alienating every
other platform.
I will assume that failure to respond to this article
infers knowledge on your behalf of such plans.
Please, please prove me wrong.
>>Has anyone of you seen WWW before?
>
>Every day.
So, if you know what the web is about, put a stop to the
rumors...
>-Chris Wilson
>--
>The opinions expressed in this message are my own personal views
>and do not reflect the official views of Microsoft Corporation.
A friendly word of warning...
If you give out details about MS products, then I believe that you
are speaking for the company (at least in some countries... :-)
I worked for Cray Research for quite a time. in such companies,
opinions are your own, information about the company or its
products belong to the company.
Divulging information and hoping that such sigs cover your ass
is just not realistic.
I would hope that anyone who divulged company information
(like the MS Norway fool who recently divulged MS TPC-C benchmark
information before the benchmark had been audited,) would be
publically reprimanded or sacked.
BTW: MS failed to comment on the above (in a comp.db.* spam).
He also failed to back up his claims, during which time
Sun/Sybase came out with AUDITED results via an official
press release. So, MS has had quite a bit of bad net press lately.
I hope you can at least kill off the web rumors.
I think the stink caused by MS employees breaking TPC rules
( 1 - the manufacturer has to divulge information. not the
database vendor.
2 - benchmark results cannot be divulged until the benchmark
is audited. I understand that this invalidates the
benchmark...
)
may live a bit longer.
I hope that you might be able to clear up this mess as well.
--
Jacqui Caren, Paul Ingram Group Ltd. J.C...@ig.co.uk
echo '$a' | adb
Machine Always Crashes, If Not The Operating System Hangs
Mike Meyer
> Mike Meyer (m...@contessa.phone.net) wrote:
> NOW, about the site I will probably browse (unless it takes to long
> to load):
> I wish you would have mentioned what that site does that is wrong. When
Look at it in something that doesn't do <CENTER>. Realize that it's
virtually unusable. Now look at the source. I've seen people ask for
pages where the "God is now<CENTER>where</CENTER>" thing happened.
This looks like a good exaple to me.
> I'll paste in something from a test file using Netscape 1.22, which is the
> version I currently have loaded.
[deleted]
> Note that the </P> before <LI> produce an extra newline.
In other words, NetScape is buggy. This shouldn't be news.
> Yes, I agree you meant what you said, which is why I commented. I wanted
> to make sure. Since the Netscape behavior you mentioned helps people using
> it as a browser, rather than as something to develop pages.
No, this behavior *doesn't* help people using it as a browser. If the
author expected the correct behavior, then *NetScape* won't be able to
follow the link.
> Personally I wish the Netscape I use to create and browse my own pages
> didn't do that, but I think it is a feature
How can failing to fetch the correct URL be considered a feature? That
it's consistent about it merely means that people won't notice problem
in their HTML.
> <!-- starts a comment and --> ends one. I think it's kind of neat, because
> I don't know how to comment out "--" in the comments I put in DTD's.
Why are you feeding DTD's to NetScape? It doesn't know jack about them.
BTW, the way to comment out things in a DTD is:
<![ IGNORE [ ... ]]>
> O.K., IMO, HTML 3.0 conformaty makes good ad-copy.
But NetScape is using it to create FUD, and delay the arrival of an
open standard.
> I don't know why they should. If I can use a DTD that validates an HTML
> file with Netscape-only tags and then modify the DTD to do _only_ what
> I want it to do, so can other people.
Yeah, it's easy to write in an arbitrary subset of NHTML. So what?
That doesn't help people who want to write tools that deal with shared
documents - which is the whole point of an OPEN standard, as opposed
to an internal one. I've always said that if you're going to write for
a captive audience, go ahead and use NHTML or whatever you want. After
all, you're not worried about interoperability any more. If you want
to write for the world wide web, you have to write to a real standard,
not some figment of your imagination.
> Personally, I'd rather Netscape
> do what they do best, and forget the spec stuff. Let the people that
> really understand SGML and hopefully a little typography deal with the
> specifications that the world will focus on.
Doesn't work for two reasons. First, NetScape keeps introducing cruft
that just isn't SGML. That's only to be expected from people
designing language extensions for a language they don't understand.
Second, if netscape and authors don't pay any attention to the open
standards, then they are just so many bits.
What NetScape appears to do best is write buggy but popular browsers
that delay the creation of an open standard.
BTW, NetScape producing a spec doesn't mean they have to provide a
DTD. They just have to provide a formal (even in English) description
of the set of legal documents, so I can know when my NHTML-reading
tool is finished.
> : No, I *said* it was a bug. The document they claimed to have followed
> : (and largely did) says tables should behave that way. Tables don't.
> : Ergo, it's a bug. They can cop out and claim it's a documentation bug,
> : but it's still a bug.
>
> Their documentation says the following about ALIGN
>
> "
> ALIGN
>
> If appearing inside a CAPTION it controls whether the caption
> appears above or below the table, and can have the values top or
> bottom, defaulting to top.
>
> If appearing inside a TR, TH, or TD it controls whether text
> inside the table cell(s) is aligned to the left side of the cell,
> the right side of the cell, or centered within the cell. Values
> are left, center, and right.
>
> "
> They didn't say anything about an align attribute for TABLE.
Right. This is a good illustration of the difference between what they
provide and a spec.
Since they said they implemented tables according to HTML 3, and HTML
3 says that the ALIGN attribute can appear on tables, their browser is
buggy.
> : You apparently believe NetScape is a "commercial-grade" browser. I
> : find it mostly unusable for a number of reasons. The browsers that I
> : do use accept large chunks of HTML 3.0 and style sheets (and run on a
> : "lowly PC").
> I state over and over there is no such animal. [That doesn't make so.]
You mean you don't consider NetScape a commercial-grade browser? Since
the lack of existence of a commercial-grade browser is your reason for
rejecting HTML 3, where's the one that causes you to accept NHTML?
> For me HTML 3.0 browsing is a waste of time due to the Boddhisattva
> nature of writing WEB pages for all browsers.
Funny, I don't have that problem. Of course, I have to restrict myself
to the subset of HTML 3 that is understood by most common browsers,
but that's not a major problem. It works much better than trying to
NHTML under the same constraints.
<mike
Thomas Wolf
: > Windows NT: laaaaaagggg
: Dear Mark, what kind of bug is this? Are we reaching a bit here? I've used
: NT now for a year and a half or more, and it is faster, more stable and
: certainly more useful than any UN*X I've tried.
What UNIXs did you try? How did you come to the conclusion that NT was
more stable? How did you compare?
I, too, have been running Windows NT sporadically for the past year or so.
Even though I only turn it on occasionally, there have been at least two
occasions when the system hung on me. During the same time frame, I've
had a Sun SPARCstation running Solaris 2.x running continuously (with
the occasional reboot to install new hw or OS version) - without a single
glitch. Prior to running Solaris 2.x, I was running SunOS - which was
even stabler (if that's possible.)
In terms of usage: Whereas I only do an occasional compile or invocation of
wordprocessors/spreadsheets/games on the NT machine, I use my UNIX box all
day, every day, for 8-12 hours, doing compiles, reading news, surfing the
Web, rcp'ing files from all over the world - all while some other coworkers
also use my Web server, NFS mount a couple of my file systems, and run
a Web client.
...Just another view, I guess...
Tom
--
+------------------------------------------+
| Thomas Wolf | (908) 949-6283 |...Still can't think of anything
| Bell Labs, NJ | wo...@beowulf.ho.att.com | original to put in my sig...
| HO 2M-203 | wo...@honshu.ho.att.com |...So this valuable real-estate
+------------------------------------------+ is for sale...
Disclaimer: These are my opinions and not necessarily those of my employer.
Charles Peyton Taylor
>The fact that companies like Netscape and Microsoft are inventing new
>additions to the HTML spec is good and is expected. Why would Microsoft
>use Wordperfect's file specification for its Word product? The same is
Microsoft wouldn't, because it want's it's format to dominate the
market. It doesn't matter whether it's a better format or not.
You have practically made my point for me (or at least put down the
groundwork).
Let me ask you this: why are we using HTML instead of WordPerfect's
format already? (I know more about WP than Word) It already had
hypertext and multimedia, so why didn't people just use Wordperfect
on the web? BECAUSE HTML WORKS ON ALL PLATFORMS AND ON *ANY* WEB
BROWSER THAT WAS as a woman once wrote WRITTEN BY PEOPLE WHO WERE
PAYING ATTENTION.
I am lab manager, and I do a lot of support for different systems
around the school. One of the biggest problems I've had are from
people who have data in format X and they need to get it into format
Y because they have program y which doesn't understand format X.
Since HTML is a non-proprietary standard, you're not locked in by
some company, and your data is quite portable.
>true for web browsers. The new features will accelerate the growth of
>the industry. As I see it there aren't enough enhancements available
>yet. HTML is still extremely primitive and has a long way to go.
You haven't read the HTML 3 spec yet, have you? or anything about
styles (what you may have read at a corporations' web site doesn't
count, believe me.) *THOSE* are powerful features that will
accelerate the growth of the industry.
>Microsoft and Netscape have actually been conservative in their
>implementation of extended features. This is no longer a text only
>world. Animation and sound are now part of the web and are here to stay!
Yeah, yeah, multimedia, yadda-yadda-yadda. Been there, done that,
and when the dust settles, what matters is what's in writing. As
they say: "a verbal agreement is worth less than the paper it's
written on."
>For now its the wild west all over again. Expect that to continue for
>some time to come.
>
>--
>Alexander Medwedew | Computer Ventures, Inc.
>comp...@tribeca.ios.com
C h a r l e s P e y t o n T a y l o r cta...@nps.navy.mil
The opinions and views expressed ## even though we're on our own,
are my own and do not reflect ## we are never all alone,
Those of the Naval PostGraduate School ## when we are singing, singing.
http://www.nps.navy.mil/personal/charles.taylor/
Alexander Medwedew
extensions to their product, let them. What is most important is that
Netscape can properly display the established standards. Those that use
the extended features should be aware that their pages will not display
properly on other browsers.
--
Alexander Medwedew | Computer Ventures, Inc. | comp...@tribeca.ios.com |
http://tribeca.ios.com/~compvent/
http://tribeca.ios.com/~compvent/compvent.html |
http://tribeca.ios.com/~compvent/cadvance.html
http://tribeca.ios.com/~compvent/cadbasic.html |
http://tribeca.ios.com/~compvent/cvimacro.html
http://tribeca.ios.com/~compvent/cvicadv4.html |
http://tribeca.ios.com/~compvent/mempro95.html
hans rutgers
jo...@hkstar.com (Watchdog) wrote:
>If you have witnessed Microsoft's Steve Balmer speaking
No idea what you mean, I haven't heard him
>a winning strategy that does not rely on superior products
>but uses alledged threats and scare tactics.
Don't think this is new stuff; it is exactly the same way IBM
behaved in their "great" days! But somewhere they lost their >touch<
Power is what matters, not quality. This is why they all want a monopoly.
Boleslaw Mynarski
writes:
==>Good Point Dave, but if companies like MS and Netscape don't do their
==>extenstions then things would progress at a snail pace.
==>Remeber, extensions somtimes turn into standards. The extensions
==>alow companies to try differnt things and see if the are excepted
==>by the Web. So far Netscape is doing the best. My opinion is that
==>Netscape will dominate, just like windows. My site supports
==>HTML 2.0 and Enhanced Netscape 2.0 so check it out!
==>
==>Best Regards,
==>
==>Kevin Burrowes
==>http://xpresslink.com
==>
Hi Kevin, I can't agree with 100%. We can't use NetScape "extention" tags as
a standard. I read quite an interesting article on the net (if you want, I
can give you the location) why we should not consider "NetScapeism" as a HTML
standard. It seems like sometimes we all forget why HTML was created in the
first place. Do we still remember why? Because we wanted to make
information accessable globally. That means that if Joe Dow in New York
looks at my document from Toronto, he will see the same thing as someone in
Hong Kong. Now, if companies start to fragment HTML into different
extentions, then we are going to end up with "NetScapeism," "Mosaicism," "MS
Explorerism," and so on. That means that If you use NetScape and I use
WebExplorer, we will not see the same thing -> it's definetely a bad idea.
It's noble what NetScape does, but let's not carry away. Do you know that
right now there are quite a few proposals at works regarding a next version
of HTML? HTML 3.0 as we know is apparently already dead! It was proposed
but was never recognized as official. So we ended up with NetScape
extentions which, as you know, change depanding where the wind blows from.
You said: "==>Remeber, extensions somtimes turn into standards." Well, HTML
3.0 is still not a standard and won't be. There is a huge push rign now in
HTML development on things like style sheets which NetScape does not know
nothing about. If they become a standard of next HTML step-up, be prepared
for quite a few interesting looking web pages and all those who banked on
NetScape will have to re-write theirs to bring it up to "THE STANDARD."
Bolek,
See you on the NET!
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Boleslaw Mynarski, Team OS/2
G E T W A R P E D by OS/2!!!
bmyn...@pathcom.com
http://www.pathcom.com/~bmynarsk
OS/2 Junction Point:
http://www.pathcom.com/~bmynarsk/os2.html
Charities:
http://www.pathcom.com/~bmynarsk/charities.html
===================================================================
Pathway Communications' OS/2 Warp Support:
http://www.pathcom.com/~bmynarsk/pathway_os2.html
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike P.
rcre...@nrao.edu (Ramon E. Creager) wrote:
>In article <45uiuv$s...@explorer.csc.com>
>msha...@csc.com (Mark Shapiro) wrote:
>
>[rest of post deleted]
>
>> Windows NT: laaaaaagggg
>
>Dear Mark, what kind of bug is this? Are we reaching a bit here? I've used
>NT now for a year and a half or more, and it is faster, more stable and
>certainly more useful than any UN*X I've tried.
Hooo Hooo Hooo! HA HA HA! You've got to be kidding dude! What have you been
smoking??? I've run Unix and NT side-by-side for a period of six months and
watched Unix completely destroy NT as a web server platform - there is no
comparison. Even Microsoft knows this! They're running BSDI 2.0 Unix on
their web servers. The joke's on you Ray!
........................................................................
Visit SURVEY-NET The Internet's online automatic survey system .
Your source for demographics & user information on the Internet! .
Participate in and view surveys on a wide variety of topics .
SEE: http://www.survey.net/ .
........................................................................
Warren Steel
> ... I thought Netscape 1.1 to be a fine product, but I
>recently read something on their Web pages that bothered me. HTML 3.0
>provides for client-side imagemaps. Netscape is free to use this
>powerful new feature, but instead decided to implement it using a
>proprietary scheme -- does the same thing, but doesn't follow the
>standard. Why? Quoting from the page describing this feature, it's an
>easier "short term fix."
>I don't want a quick fix! I want a reliable product with a long term
>solution -- and I'm willing to pay double what Netscape costs to get a
>browser that adheres to the standard and rejects extensions. Now I'm >just waiting for a developer to get with the program and make a sale.
That's a good question; maybe someone in the Working Group could
shed some light on Netscape's claims. Correct me if I'm wrong:
HTML 3.0 has the <FIG> element, which provides multiple overlays,
client-side image maps, captions, credits, and alternate descriptive
text with full markup. Instead of implementing this powerful and
desirable construct, Netscape has gone with the <MAP> element,
which supports *some* of the <FIG> features. Marc Andreesson
explains that Netscape's <MAP> element is (1) developed by Spyglass,
and (2) shared with Microsoft's browser, and he (3) reaffirms
Netscape's commitment to support both <MAP> and <FIG> in a future
version. To me, the attributes and other components of the <MAP>
element look a lot like the <FIG> specs at www.w3.org. My question
is, can authors use the <MAP> element, and later upgrade to <FIG>
simply by changing the tag <MAP> to <FIG> and optionally adding the
other elements that <MAP> fails to support?
--
Warren Steel mu...@mail.olemiss.edu
Department of Music University of Mississippi
URL: http://www.mcsr.olemiss.edu/~mudws/
Zigg
: Extensions to Netscape shouldn't be the issue. If Netscape wants to add
Obviously, we can't stop them. Nobody who takes the time to make sure
they're doing it right has the resources to mount a campaign against
them. But that doesn't mean they're right. If a corporation suddenly
took over your local public library and announced that the new books that
would be bought would require you to use one of their products to read,
would that be right?
: What is most important is that
: Netscape can properly display the established standards.
That doesn't even happen! Netscape will forever support proprietary
kludges until they get a good wallop in the portfolio.
: Those that use
: the extended features should be aware that their pages will not display
: properly on other browsers.
There's a difference between "should be" and "will be". Netscape's
"Creating Net Sites" stuff doesn't even begin to delineate the
differences between extensions that should be experimental and things
that are established and working parts of the Web. No, as a matter of
fact, they say that they've designed their extensions not to break
existing browsers (which, as many of us have seen, is not quite true).
They claim that they are working with the W3O -- then why aren't they a
member? (They used to be. I can only conjecture why they're not now --
but I kind of suspect they got kicked out.) :) There aren't even links
to documents that *do* explain the problems with extensions anywhere on
Netscape's server (seriously, would you put them there if you were
working for NS?) In fact, Yahoo (who recently became primarily supported
by Netscape) is steadfastly refusing to put any documents under
../HTML/Netscape Extensions that explain why one should not use these
"extensions". (Trust me. I've been trying for some time, and the
closest I got was a document explaining HTML 3.0 alternatives to some of
the older extensions.)
--
Matt "Zigg" Behrens | "Oh, I'm stranded all alone
behr...@river.it.gvsu.edu | In the gas station of love,
======================================| And I have to use
Home: http://www2.gvsu.edu/~behrensm/ | The self-service pumps!"
Virtual Music Page: .../vmp/ | - "Weird Al" Yankovic,
a.b.s.mods FAQ: .../absm-faq/ | "One More Minute"
Chris Tilbury
: The fact that companies like Netscape and Microsoft are inventing new
: additions to the HTML spec is good and is expected.
Only half right. It's bad, although I suppose it's only to be expected.
: Why would Microsoft use Wordperfect's file specification for its Word product?
You just bought a spade. It's not unreasonable to expect that you could
use that spade, whilst your friend uses another (different) spade to
dig a hole together. If you couldn't, you'd probably take it back
and demand a refund.
Yet, why is it that we're perfectly willing to accept a situtation whereby
the tools we purchase to use with our computers *cannot* be used together,
unless we all buy the same tool from the same software manufacturer. Or, that
we accept we have to convert the output from our tools each and every time we
want to exchange information (and, if we're converting wordprocessor format's,
make do with something that can often look like it was formatted by a deranged
hyperactive 4 year old)
The answer to your question above is that Microsoft (and Novell, and Lotus, and ...)
should all use a *common* file specification for their word processing, spreadsheet
and database products because it makes *our* lives easier.
We can stop worrying about whether our tools will work with each other, and
get on with working with each other.
: The same is
: true for web browsers. The new features will accelerate the growth of
: the industry. As I see it there aren't enough enhancements available
: yet. HTML is still extremely primitive and has a long way to go.
: Microsoft and Netscape have actually been conservative in their
: implementation of extended features. This is no longer a text only
: world. Animation and sound are now part of the web and are here to stay!
: For now its the wild west all over again. Expect that to continue for
: some time to come.
Here speaketh a "Webtop Publisher". Reality check. HTML is not a desktop
publishing language. If you think it is, you're either ill-informed or
stupid.
Ironically, just about the best thing to happen to the web could well
be Netscape Navigator 2.0. Not because it's got yet more inane extensions
that fall far short of what the now-expired HTML 3 draft contained, but
because its EMBED tag & "plugins" support, however non-standard,
will at least give all the people who think HTML should be presentation
and not content-orientated markup (and who frequently keep telling us how
the entire world uses Netscape Navigator and that those who don't use it
aren't worth worrying about) no excuses for not using PDF or some other more
appropriate media.
: --
: Alexander Medwedew | Computer Ventures, Inc.
: comp...@tribeca.ios.com
: http://tribeca.ios.com/~compvent/
: http://tribeca.ios.com/~compvent/compvent.html
: http://tribeca.ios.com/~compvent/cadvance.html
: http://tribeca.ios.com/~compvent/cadbasic.html
: http://tribeca.ios.com/~compvent/cvimacro.html
: http://tribeca.ios.com/~compvent/cvicadv4.html
: http://tribeca.ios.com/~compvent/mempro95.html
Nice sig. No kidding. (Make sure you wipe the sarcasm off the screen at this
point, folks).
Cheers,
Chris
--
Chris Tilbury, Estates, University of Warwick, England, CV4 7AL
MIME mail welcomed - text/html makes much more interesting reading
mailto:Chris....@estate.warwick.ac.uk
Steve Osterday
> :>save one step in stealing someone else's GIF ?
> Well, according to CNN some 86 percent of the world's personal computers
> run on a Microsoft operating system, so I guess my advice was directed at
> that big majority. The tiny minority who for one reason or another use one
> of the other systems will, I guess, have to settle for less perfect
> solutions.....
May be, BUT, that's NOT Win95 exclusively. DOS and Win3.11 are also
considered MS's operating systems.
<g>
**************************************************************
********* Steve Osterday ********
********* PO Box 722 ************
********* Carnation, WA 98014 ***
**************************************************************
Gregory Leedberg
>
> am...@hntp2.hinet.net (dadai) wrote:
> >Hi! Does anyone how to save the background pattern in Nestscape. I know I can
> >save HTML by using save command. I know I can save picture files by pressing
> >right mouse button. But how can I save the background pattern in Netscape?
> >
> >Also, is there any quick way that I can save a web page and it's associate
> >graphic files at the same time? Such one mouse click or command?
> >
> >Any reply will be welcome. Please reply via email since I don't read newsgroup
> >frequently.
> >
> >
> >Mac Chen
> >
>
> Although this is not very elegant and I'm sure their is a more straight forward way
> to accomplish saving (kidnapping) GIF backgrounds, here is one way to do it:
>
> Call this the "Dissecting Mozilla's Belly Method"
>
> Open up L-view or PSP or other GIF viewing sotware and click on to the
> netscape/cache directory. Here you will see .moz files. Go to the bottom of the list
> of .moz files and begin opening them until u see the Background GIF u want to save
> and then save it in the directory you choose as a *.gif file.
>
> The bottom of the .moz list represents the most current html pages and included
> GIF's u have viewed, so it (the GIF) u want should be at the bottom of the .moz
> list of files.
>
> Again, I'm sure there is a less kludgy way to do this?
>
>
> --
> Thank You |>>> Steve Traub
> __________|__ ------------------------------
> | _ _ _ | Property Valuation Advisors (PVA)
> | |_| |_| |_| | Commercial/Investment Real Estate
> | _ _ _ | Appraisals in New England
> | |_| |_| |_| |
> | _ _ _ | E-mail: str...@shore.net
> | |_| |_| |_| |
> | _ _ _ | PVA's Information SuperDriveway
> | |_| |_| |_| | http://www.shore.net/~straub/pva.htm
> | _ __ _ | Property Valuation Monitor
> | |_| | ||_| | http://www.shore.net/~straub/pvm.htm
> | | | | Personal Page
> ------------- http://www.shore.net/~straub/inside.htm
I know one "techy" way to do it... load the page that contains the
background, click on View|By Source. Then look at what comes after the
<BODY BACKGROUND= tag. Then type that path and file name AFTER the site
and directory and file that's already loaded. The background image should
come up, and you can right click it and save it.
--
+---------------------------------------------+
| Visit GL Soft on the web! |
| Activate your browsers and go to: |
| http://users.aol.com/GLSOFT/glsoft.htm |
+---------------------------------------------+
Chris Woodfield
<comp...@tribeca.ios.com> wrote:
> Extensions to Netscape shouldn't be the issue. If Netscape wants to add
> extensions to their product, let them. What is most important is that
> Netscape can properly display the established standards. Those that use
> the extended features should be aware that their pages will not display
> properly on other browsers.
>
The problem is that a whole lot of HTML coders choose to ignore that...for
all you know, they could be using Lynx and not be able to even SEE all
those fancy image maps, much less use them. I plead guilty myself, to an
extent. I'm seeing more and more pages with the line "It is recommended
that you use Netscape to view this page" or something like that...
However, you don't see many other browsers copying the Netscape
extensions. I wonder why, especially when so many pages are geared towards
Netscape. The extensions are public domain...
--
Chris Woodfield
Graphic Terrorist - Cyberjunkie
rek...@charm.net - http://www.charm.net/~rekoil
andwhentheycometoenthnicallycleansemewillyoiuspeakoutwillyoudefendme?
Mike Meyer
> Actually, Microsoft is very interested in providing a quality
>product you can use to solve your problems. I can't speak for Netscape. <g>
So, when are we going to see a desktop OS form MS that has complete
memory protection (i.e. - if a malicious program manages to crash the
computer, it's considered an OS bug); pre-emptive multi-tasking, a
windowing system that let's me run programs from remote sites using
protocols defined in open standards? That'd be the first step. Oh
yeah - it's got to run reasonably on a 386 w/ 8 Meg of ram.
<mike
Mike Meyer
> Furthermore, Microsoft is trying to push the idea of RTF mail. Since RTF
> seems to change with every new version of Word, this is a *very* scary
> thing.
So? NHTML seems to change with every release of NetScape. And since
NetScape lies about the name of the language they support - calling it
HTML - they're screwing up the standards process. Since they also
don't do anything about content negotiation, they're making life
harder for web authors, people running web sites, and people writing
other web browsers.
> The UNIX community had a huge technological lead over DOS, OS/2, and NT
> for years, yet squandered it through in-fighting like this.
Dead to rights. Now, in the WWW community, what company is ignoring
existing practice and draft standards, causing the community to be
divided among itself?
> I for one am
> cheering for Netscape, because at least open-systems stand a chance if
> Netscape can stay a contender.
No, open standards that NetScape doesn't feel are important to it's
profit stand a chance - as long as NetScape feels that way.
> Yeah, it'll be hell in HTML land for a while
But it didn't have to be that way. NetScape could have followed
existing practices and draft standards instead of inventing new ways
to do things. They seem bent on dividing the HTML world as much as
they possibly can. The only people this helps are the ones who don't
have to worry about ineroperability.
> but stop pretending that open standards like http, news, MIME, and
> even HTML are safe from being *totally replaced* by a proprietary standard
> like Notes or RTF.
They are safe from that happening to them. Now, it may be that popular
usage will drift away from them. So what? Those of us who still want
to use open solutions aren't hurt by that - because the replacements
aren't pretending to be what they are replacing. When they lie about
the name of their page description language by calling it HTML,
NetScape makes it nearly imposible for people who want to use open
solutions to do so.
> The net explosion is the first time that open standards have won big against
> closed models in the computing industry.
Yeah - it's won big because the players played by the rules layed down
by the IETF, doing small experiments with extensions to see how well
the worked, then releasing them to the rest of the world. The OS part
of open systems lost because the players couldn't abide by the
standard, but had to keep providing "extensions" that did nothing more
than divide the "open" market into a collection of markets that
claimed to be compatable but were in practice no less proprietary than
the competition.
> Let's not root for the guys who would just as soon put the genie
> back into the bottle.
I'm not rooting for them. Nor am I going to root for the guys who are
helping them put the genie back in the bottle by balkanizing the open
systems world.
> * Those that insist on 100% dedication to open standards (a small crowd)
> * Those that don't give a rip about open standards, and just look at
> the feature list (large crowd)
> Netscape is trying to split the difference here, and seem to be getting
> crucified here. Is that what'll happen to every comapny that tries?
No, NetScape seems to be catering 100% to the second crowd. They've
been claiming "HTML 2.0" compatability for quite a while now - but
NetScape 2.0 is the first version that can actually parse all useful
HTML.
<mike
Alex Kremer
Oh what else? Want it to drive your car for you too? Sheesh...
Alex Kremer
a...@raven.cybercomm.net
Chris Wilson
>Hooo Hooo Hooo! HA HA HA! You've got to be kidding dude! What have
>you been smoking??? I've run Unix and NT side-by-side for a period of
>six months and watched Unix completely destroy NT as a web server
>platform - there is no comparison. Even Microsoft knows this! They're
>running BSDI 2.0 Unix on their web servers. The joke's on you Ray!
No, we are not. www.microsoft.com and www.msn.com are both running
Windows NT. I believe someone (not from Microsoft) posted and said one of
the other small servers here is running some form of UNIX - I have no idea
if that is true of any of our servers, but certainly not of the ones that
handle the vast bulk of our WWW traffic. I don't think I've even seen a
UNIX machine since I got here.
Mike Meyer
> >I can think of three solutions that even a mediocre product would
> >provide:
> >1) Using an open standard so I can use my platform of choice.
> >2) Some way of forwarding mail (if it exists, no one can find it).
> >3) Some method of remote operation via standard protocols.
> I'm fairly certain you can do all three of these by using Exchange and
> SMTP.
Ok, can I install exchange on my client (not the server) to do this?
Or does it requie convincing the power that be that they need exchange
(not likely; they use SoftSwitch for that kind of thing).
> It could well be that MS *does* produce some of
> >the best products for those markets. This is a scary thought, and goes
> >a long way to explain how a screen saver could be one of the best
> >selling products on those platforms.
> Hmm. Well, I was in fact speaking of the Windows and Mac platforms. I
> don't understand exactly why you consider that a scary thought, and I
> certainly don't understand the screen saver comment, but whatever. In
It's a scary thought that the two most popular computing platforms
around have - as the best software available to them - software that
crashes at seemingly random intervals and in general drives my
productivity into the dirt.
As for screen savers - at one point, After Dark (in various
incarnations) had 3 of the top 10 spots for sales in the Windows
Market and 6 of the top 10 in the Mac market. I couldn't for the life
of me figure out why software that's basically only usefull when your
computer isn't would be so popular. If most things are as painfull as
I've found them to be, then doing things by hand is probably a lot
quicker, which means you need the screensaver a lot more.
> general, however, I believe that Microsoft is on the right track to
> address these interoperability concerns.
The random crashing isn't an interoperability issue. It's just a pain.
According to the (local) support people, it's also a fact of life with
this MS product.
<mike
Zigg
: However, you don't see many other browsers copying the Netscape
: extensions. I wonder why, especially when so many pages are geared towards
: Netscape. The extensions are public domain...
It's because Netscape's "extensions" are documented just fine for the Web
authors (i.e. those who use Navigator for their "preview"), but the
documentation for the people who would write browsers is sorely lacking.
The way Netscape's "extensions" are written is to give a definitive look
every time, set for pixels and such (while conversely, the W3O is taking
the time to make sure HTML3 is a workable solution when scaled to all
browsers and platforms). To achieve your desired effect only in Navigator
is easy -- because you have only one goal in mind as to how it will look.
But the author of a browser that has to be compatible with "extensions"
has to either disassemble Navigator (which is technically illegal, and
rather difficult), or sit and do trial-and-error runs with EVERY POSSIBLE
kludge that Navigator "extensions" writers are going to try. This,
needless to say, is a veritable R&D nightmare. Take a look at Netscape's
documentation of tables vs. the W3O's and you'll see what I mean --
NS's is a page full of "This is how you get this to look pretty", while
W3O's documents the table sizing algorithms (useful for both author and
developer!). If you were a developer, you'd definitely go with the W3O's
documentation (unless you enjoy weeks of tweaking).
On top of all that, any commercial authors (most of whom are just entering
the business) aren't going to want to say "Our browser is a Netscape
clone." They're all following Netscape's sorely discouraging lead -- and
introducing their own extensions. (OK, so <CENTER> is an exception.)
Zigg
Zigg
: So? NHTML seems to change with every release of NetScape. And since
: NetScape lies about the name of the language they support - calling it
: HTML - they're screwing up the standards process. Since they also
: don't do anything about content negotiation, they're making life
: harder for web authors, people running web sites, and people writing
: other web browsers.
I've been toying around with an interim solution to this problem.
Perhaps by modifying an existing HTTPD, someone could create a daemon
that serves 3.0 or 2.0 documents based on content negotiation, but those
browsers that refuse the content negotiation could provide only a 2.0
compliant browser. Is anyone/has anyone undertaken this sort of project?
Chris Wilson
>>
>>Well, yeah. Should I bother recapping TimBL's past (not to mention
>>my own) here? I think not.
>
>The question was about the WWW and its goals not about your
>employment history.
>Anyway, what is wrong with posting your employment history?
>I will if you will. :-)
Okay, here you go. Copied and pasted straight out of my resume...
September 1990 - April 1994
National Center for Supercomputing Applications
Programmer (Undergraduate, Academic Hourly and Full-Time Employee).
Co-author of NCSA Mosaic for Microsoft Windows. Worked on NCSA PC Telnet
and DOS TCP/IP applications, exploratory sonification programs (utilizing
sound to visualize scientific data), NCSA Audible Image (scientific data
visualization/sonification package), NCSA Collage (a collaborative
visualization tool), Microsoft Windows networking tools, and low-end
virtual reality systems. Project lead for all DOS and Windows projects.
April 1994 - July 1995
SPRY, Inc.
Software Engineer and World Wide Web Technology Lead. Developed SPRY AIR
Mosaic (graphical interface and Internet protocol work), worked on
Secure-HTTP encryption and authentication code, provided consultation on
issues relating to the WWW, and designed and developed MIME decoding and
encoding system used by SPRY Mail and News products.
July 1995 - present
Microsoft Corporation
Software Design Engineer in Internet and Business Services group in
Microsoft On-line Services division working on Webfind project.
In two weeks, I'm moving to the Internet Explorer group.
So, as you can see, I've done a little bit of WWW work.
>Anyway, the question was about the WWW, to try and find out
>if the MS developers know anything about the WWW ethic.
>I assume from your answer that you feel threatened when
>asked to justify MSIE HTML extensions in a public forum.
No, not at all. Those decisions were not mine (which is not to say I
wouldn't have made them if they had been), so I don't think it's my job to
justify them. I do feel that most of them are justifiable, however.
>So the question is -
> Does MS intend to develop a proprietary HTML-alike only
> for MS sofwtare customers, effectively alienating every
> other platform.
And the answer is -
No. That would be antithetical to the point of the World Wide Web. Will
Microsoft try to push the evolution of HTML? Certainly. Anyone
interested in the future of the Web should do that, if you ask me. Will
we do this in a responsible manner? I should certainly hope so, and I'll
be doing everything I can to encourage it. Will we come up with
innovative features that stretch the current boundaries of the Web, as
other companies have done in the past? Certainly - it is part of our
challenge (and mine in particular, given that I'd love to give away
everything I do) to do this in as open and cooperative an environment as
possible.
>I will assume that failure to respond to this article
>infers knowledge on your behalf of such plans.
Pardon the late response... I've been extremely busy, and have not had the
time to read news for a few days.
>So, if you know what the web is about, put a stop to the
>rumors...
I've been trying to. I didn't say I knew "what the Web is about,"
though... that would be a gargantuan amount of information... :^)
>>The opinions expressed in this message are my own personal views
>>and do not reflect the official views of Microsoft Corporation.
>
>A friendly word of warning...
>
>If you give out details about MS products, then I believe that you
>are speaking for the company (at least in some countries... :-)
>I worked for Cray Research for quite a time. in such companies,
>opinions are your own, information about the company or its
>products belong to the company.
>
>Divulging information and hoping that such sigs cover your ass
>is just not realistic.
The disclaimer in my .sig is a standard Microsoft one... in fact, when I
installed the newsreader off the corporate network, it installed that as
my sig by default.
I would hope that I have NOT divulged details about Microsoft products...
I have always been very careful about that. I would certainly hope that
one of the other Microsoft employees who read this newsgroup would tell me
if they thought I had stepped over that line (they haven't.) In
addition, you will notice that littered throughout my rhetoric are
phrases like "I will be attempting to encourage..." and "I hope to
drive...". I do not speak for Microsoft - I just describe how I would
like Microsoft's Internet presence to evolve. I also have attempted to
allay some fears about Microsoft doing to the Web what I believe Netscape
has been in the process of doing for some time now.
>I hope you can at least kill off the web rumors.
So do I.
Chris Wilson
In article <3087D...@eskimo.com>, ro...@eskimo.com says...
>Whoa, whoa, whoa. There are bigger battles being fought than the battle
>over HTML. Netscape could certainly do a better job of respecting
>standards, but they are promoting some very important standards that
>Microsoft has refused to support for years.
Like what?
>Netscape looks like it is going into a head on battle with Microsoft and
>IBM on the groupware front. If IBM gets their way, Notes will be a
>"standard". If Microsoft gets their way, Exchange will be a "standard".
Hmm. Well, I suppose... but the Exchange client interacts with a lot of
Internet standards like SMTP and MIME. I use it every day for lots of
communication with Internet mailing lists.
>Both of these products maintain compatibility with open standards like
>SMTP through unwieldy gateways, and have custom client-server protocols
>(like MAPI, for instance).
Unwieldy gateways? Not really... you can get a MAPI driver for SMTP, and
you're all set. At the same time, due to the MAPI interface, you can
maintain backwards compatibility with other email standards in use (e.g.,
MSMail), as well as new applications (I have faxes go straight into my
inbox, for example) via MAPI. MAPI is not a "custom client-server
protocol", if you ask me - it's a way of abstracting messaging service
providers and messaging client software.
>Furthermore, Microsoft is trying to push the idea of RTF mail. Since RTF
>seems to change with every new version of Word, this is a *very* scary
>thing. If you've ever looked at RTF as plain text, you know it is only
>marginally more human readable than postscript.
Huh? I fail to see where this fits in. You can send ANYTHING via MIME.
In fact, when I forget to tell my Exchange client to not send the Exchange
RTF format version of a document, it still sends the text - so the worst
anyone gets is an extra MIME body that they can't understand. They still
get the text in plain text format.
>Netscape's vision of groupware appears to be a web of newsservers, IMAP
>email servers, and web servers, all passing MIME attachments and platform
>independant Java apps and HTML-formatted messages about.
Okay, I fail to see the big gap here. From what I understand, Netscape
did pretty much what Microsoft did for its (Win95) Internet email solution
- they wrote an SMTP MAPI driver. (I'll plead ignorance if this is no
longer true.) Other companies are now doing this also. The Exchange
client (and presumably, the server, since it needs to understand the
messages going through it) use MIME also.
>Sure, they are taking liberties with HTML in pulling it off, but their
>solution is for the most part an open one.
You can create a proprietary solution starting from an open base. HTML is
open. Netscape's version of HTML is not. (I'm not saying that
Microsoft's was any more open, but at least it showed a little more
foresight in tag design.)
>Microsoft and IBM sure as hell won't do this, even if some of their
>employees have the best of intentions on this front.
I don't believe this is even remotely true.
>The UNIX community had a huge technological lead over DOS, OS/2, and NT
>for years, yet squandered it through in-fighting like this. I for one am
>cheering for Netscape, because at least open-systems stand a chance if
>Netscape can stay a contender. Yeah, it'll be hell in HTML land for a
>while, but stop pretending that open standards like http, news, MIME, and
>even HTML are safe from being *totally replaced* by a proprietary
>standard like Notes or RTF.
Where did that come from? And where is your logic? You say "at least
open-systems stand a chance if Netscape can stay a contender", but then in
the next sentence, admit that Netscape is screwing up the HTML
standardization efforts by making proprietary extensions. And I can't
"stop pretending that open standards... are safe from being *totally
replaced*" by proprietary solutions, because I'm not pretending - I
believe they are safe from being totally replaced. *Extensions* are just
that - not replacements for a standard. Why do you think Netscape did
such a deal with Adobe Acrobat? How is this ANY DIFFERENT that shipping
RTF or Word format or whatever? It's not, and I don't believe that any of
these are a bad thing. I DO BELIEVE IN HTML AS AN OPEN AND EXTENSIBLE
STANDARD THAT WILL CONTINUE TO BE THE FOUNDATION OF WEB FOR YEARS TO COME.
There; I've said it. I'll shouting shouting now.
>Don't pretend that Microsoft won't leverage net-dominance to force
>*everyone* onto Windows. The net explosion is the first time that open
>standards have won big against closed models in the computing industry.
>Let's not root for the guys who would just as soon put the genie back
>into the bottle.
I think this part of the thread should get moved to alt.destroy.microsoft
and alt.fan.marc-andreesen.
Zigg
: I know I can't be the first to have brought this up, but what about
: introducing a scheme into HTML/SGML that allows vendor-specific
: extensions while preserving the integrety of the spec.
: I'm thinking something similar to what they did
: in SMTP ages ago: the "X-" prefix, as in:
[example snip!]
: With this extension available, vendors have *no excuse* not to follow the
: spec, because a method for extending the spec is built into the spec.
Well, they still have their backwards compatibility issues with former
versions of their products -- so you can't (unfortunately) destroy the
garbage that's already out there.
: Furthermore, once you know this simple fact about mail headers, you know
: at a glance what the vendor specific stuff is and can throw it out. You
: know that it'll never conflict with the future specs, and it places the
: burden on vendors to deliniate their stupid extensions.
It's a great idea, IMO, but it has one fatal flaw. When an X-... header
is added to a mail message, it's in the header, and it can be safely
stripped without affecting the content. The problems arise when you use
X-TAGS and X-ATTRIBUTES, because they are meant to relay something which
could be more or less vital to the document. For example, when NS
introduced their version of tables, if they had used <X-TABLE> as their
wrapper, us poor old 2.0-level browser users would still see a few lines
of garbage. Unfortunately, defining a tag's meaning as "experimental"
doesn't do much for the effect it still has on a document when it's rendered.
: A simplistic way of applying this:
: <x-blink>Blinking text</x-blink>
^^^^^^^^
This would work. Perhaps we might even consider this sort of idea (which
is probably totally against SGML):
<X-BLINK STD=EM>
which would, with a new compliant browser, read the <X-...> as an <EM>,
preserving the semantic markup. Of course, this also requires rewrites of
existing browsers -- dealing with money-hungry corporations was certainly
not in the minds of the Web's designers when they proposed their
information system for retrieval of data across all platforms.
Any other ideas? Am I way off? :)
Joshua Sean Bell
>
> <X-BLINK STD=EM>
>
>which would, with a new compliant browser, read the <X-...> as an <EM>,
Or, they could follow the proposed specs:
<EM CLASS="blink"> ... </EM>
<P CLASS="marquee"> ... </P>
Guess what? These display properly on *all* browsers, giving emphasis
and paragraph breaks! And (gasp!) they'd look like they were intended to
look given (1) their special browser, and (2) any browser that handled
style sheets, was supplied a blink and marquee class, and knew how to
blink/marquee something.
That means that browser authors who have to meet customer demands before
they meet the specs (read: Netscape, Microsoft's web team, etc) *can*
add in nifty gizmos, and be in total compliance with the HTML specs.
You only need "X-tags" when adding something which doesn't resemble
existing markup at all. E.g., tables/frames could not be implemented
(well!) using this method. And those sorts of things will just look
gross in a browser that can't handle them anyway.
Anything which can be represented as an external document should
probably be referenced by a <LINK> tag, and with HTML3 it looks like we
get the <EMBED> for adding in an external chunk, so something which must
be integrated can be slurped in that way.
Joshua
--
___.----~~~----.___ | MIME: jsb...@acs.ucalgary.ca
,--------.-.,-'-------------------` | WWW: http://www.ucalgary.ca/~jsbell/
`--------"-'-.,---`~~~-----~~~'
'---'-._____/
Arjun Ray
Chris Wilson <cwi...@microsoft.com> writes:
>
>September 1990 - April 1994
> National Center for Supercomputing Applications
>Programmer (Undergraduate, Academic Hourly and Full-Time Employee).
Ah, an insider... :-)
>April 1994 - July 1995
> SPRY, Inc.
>Software Engineer and World Wide Web Technology Lead. Developed SPRY AIR
>Mosaic (graphical interface and Internet protocol work), [...]
Ah, more Mosaic experience... :-)
>July 1995 - present
> Microsoft Corporation
>[...]
>In two weeks, I'm moving to the Internet Explorer group.
Excellent. The first thing you could do, IMHO, is to point the nearest
working copy of IE (another Mosaic derivative, I believe) at
<URL:http://www.phone.net/~mwm/bugs.html>
and try to justify getting that page wrong.
I've always wondered since I saw the source for the X version,
<URL:ftp://ftp.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Mosaic/Unix/source/Mosaic-src/libhtmlw/HTMLparse.c>
and in particular, the get_mark() subroutine therein.
Do all the various incarnations of Mosaic share this moronic heuristic?
>[...] That would be antithetical to the point of the World Wide Web. Will
>Microsoft try to push the evolution of HTML? Certainly. Anyone
>interested in the future of the Web should do that, if you ask me. Will
>we do this in a responsible manner? I should certainly hope so, and I'll
>be doing everything I can to encourage it. [...]
Wouldn't it be better to implement a correct tokenizer first? A BNF
for the Reference Concrete Syntax is available at
<URL:ftp://ftp.ifi.uio.no/pub/SGML/productions>
Cheers,
ar
Phil Hunt
bdb...@erenj.com "Bryan D. Boyle" writes:
> After having dealings with micro$oft since mbasic 4.51 on CP/M, I can say that
> nothing has changed except the logo and Gates' porsche 959 still being locked
> up in a warehouse. Even with all that loot, he still can't get the gov't to
> let it out. There is some justice.
I've not heard of this. Why is Gates' Porsche in a warehouse?
--
Phil Hunt.....philip@storcomp.demon.co.uk
***** Vote for the creation of uk.media.tv.brookside. *****
***** See the CFV in uk.net.news.announce for details. *****
Stephen Frost
: So, when are we going to see a desktop OS form MS that has complete
: memory protection (i.e. - if a malicious program manages to crash the
: computer, it's considered an OS bug); pre-emptive multi-tasking, a
: windowing system that let's me run programs from remote sites using
: protocols defined in open standards? That'd be the first step. Oh
: yeah - it's got to run reasonably on a 386 w/ 8 Meg of ram.
386s eh ... <g> ... yeah, right. We all want to be running them. Not.
Steve
Phil Hunt
If something runs fast enough on a 386 with 8MB, it'll be damn fast
on a 486 or 586 with 16MB.
Hrvoje Niksic - ETF
> : Microsoft and Netscape have actually been conservative in their
> : implementation of extended features. This is no longer a text only
> : world. Animation and sound are now part of the web and are here to stay!
> world. Come on, you can do it. I mean, you sure swayed me. Feel free to
> give me a call once you've managed to get every last piece of equipment
> capable of accessing the Web up-to-speed with your standards for animation
> and sound.
He could also try convincing users with 9600bps connections that
having loads of pictures is very cool. Or people using text-only
browsers.
--
hni...@srce.hr | Student of electrical engineering
http://www.srce.hr/~hniksic/ | University of Zagreb, Croatia
------------------------------------------------------------------
He didn't administer the reign of terror, just the occasional light shower.
-- (Terry Pratchett, Sourcery)
Jason Garman
Stephen Frost <fros...@shell02.ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>Mike Meyer (m...@contessa.phone.net) wrote:
>: So, when are we going to see a desktop OS form MS that has complete
>: memory protection (i.e. - if a malicious program manages to crash the
>: computer, it's considered an OS bug); pre-emptive multi-tasking, a
>: windowing system that let's me run programs from remote sites using
>: protocols defined in open standards? That'd be the first step. Oh
>: yeah - it's got to run reasonably on a 386 w/ 8 Meg of ram.
>
>386s eh ... <g> ... yeah, right. We all want to be running them. Not.
>
We'd sure appreciate it!!!
- Jason (Hell, my home machine was a 386sx/16 w/4 meg ram not long ago...
not exactly zippy, but at least it had a real OS in a 50 meg
partition at that)
Bryan D. Boyle
cwi...@microsoft.com (Chris Wilson) wrote:
|>
|>Of course... why do you think Netscape stock is trading at ~$70/share?
|><grin>
|>
Because they actually have produced a useful product, market it properly, and
treat their customers like intelligent people rather than sheep being led
around by the nose with nowhere else to go?
After having dealings with micro$oft since mbasic 4.51 on CP/M, I can say that
nothing has changed except the logo and Gates' porsche 959 still being locked
up in a warehouse. Even with all that loot, he still can't get the gov't to
let it out. There is some justice.
Bryan D. Boyle Exxon Research and Engineering Co.
908-730-3338 Alphapage: bbo...@apt1.pagemart.com
Email: bdb...@erenj.com
the opinions expressed in this broadcast are those of the host and callers, and
do not represent those of ER&E, Exxon Corporation, its advertisers, or anyone
else, for that matter.
Jason T. Nelson
Frank McNeil <ftme...@shellx.best.com> wrote:
>Alan J Flavell (FLA...@cernvm.cern.ch) wrote:
>: Nonsense. You simply haven't been paying attention. The HTML3
>: extensions are much more powerful than HTML-hostile kludges like
>: <FONT...> and stuff, and many of those extensions have been a stable
>: draft for simply ages.
>Anyone can have a good idea and write it down. It is much harder
>to write good software for ms-windows 3.1+.
I'm REALLY interested in why you keep harping on this Windoze 3.1 thing. Why
do you think that just because Netscape only crashes a little less than other
Windows browsers, that it's impossible to produce something better (eg,
browsers using powerful HTML 3 tags and style sheets)?
>: If companies had been willing to implement what was already
>: specified, instead of dragging their feet and dreaming up glitzy
>: kludges, we would already be a lot further forward than we are now.
>
>Maybe they couldn't implement stylesheet applications into a browser
>that works very well with HTML 3.1.
Again.. how are you arriving at this conclusion? That just because Netscape
hasn't implemented a large subset of HTML 3 and at least one style sheet
language under a obviously broken pretty OS-wannabe (maybe you believe
Netscape's hype too, dunno), you believe this can't be done? This is very
confusing. There are other OS's around you know.. And contrary to what Netscape
would like you to believe, it does not take all that much more computational
power to use some HTML 3 or style sheets. Why did they take so long to push
their 2.0broken browser out the door when what they could have done looks like
the effort of a few programmers working casually? How hard was it for them to
look at <div align=center></div> and change the code to make it act like
their <center></center> (as has been pointed out on this newsgroup many times).
Jason T. Nelson ja...@jlc.net
http://www.jlc.net/~jason/ NeXT/MIME mail ok!
Mike Meyer
> : Nonsense. You simply haven't been paying attention. The HTML3
> : extensions are much more powerful than HTML-hostile kludges like
> to write good software for ms-windows 3.1+.
Ahh, so MicroSoft is adding holding back the WWW to their already
impressive record of holding back desktop computing.
> P.S. I agree with the general Idea that Netscape and Microsoft are
> improving communications on the WEB with their extensions.
This is probably true - at least for NetScape. It's to early to tell
for MicroSoft. Unfortunately, by ignoring existing practice acting
like their extensions were HTML and otherwise working to balkanize the
WWW, NetScane managed to raise the signal/noise ratio on the web, and
made life miserable for those interested in serving the highest
quality content possible to the WWW.
<mike
sam
>In article <rekoil-2210...@rekoil.charm.net>,
>Chris Woodfield <rek...@charm.net> wrote:
>>However, you don't see many other browsers copying the Netscape
>>extensions.
>a thing as the HTML Working Group. To find out why they're doing
>what they're doing, please read RFC 1602
> <URL:http://ds.internic.net/rfc/rfc1602.txt>
[snip]
rfc1602.txt is dated March 1994. got anything more recent?
Arjun Ray
>[snip]
>>In article <rekoil-2210...@rekoil.charm.net>,
>>Chris Woodfield <rek...@charm.net> wrote:
>>>However, you don't see many other browsers copying the Netscape
>>>extensions.
>>Fancy that. If you want good reasons, remember that there is such
>>a thing as the HTML Working Group. To find out why they're doing
>>what they're doing, please read RFC 1602
>> <URL:http://ds.internic.net/rfc/rfc1602.txt>
>
Hot off the press! Did you have trouble finding it? The IETF Home Page is
<URL:http://www.ietf.cnri.reston.va.us/home.html>
There are links to an RFC index
<URL:http://ds.internic.net/ds/dspg1intdoc.html>
and an Internet-Drafts index
<URL:http://www.ietf.cnri.reston.va.us/1id-abstracts.html>
The I-D index lists two entries for the POISED95 Working Group
(Process for Organization of Internet Standards 95), and one of
them is indeed an attempt to update RFC 1602, dated 10/10/95:
S. Bradner, "The Internet Standards Process - Revision 3"
<URL:ftp://ietf.cnri.reston.va.us/internet-draft/
draft-ietf-poised95-std-proc-3-01.txt>
BTW, "Revision 1" was RFC 1310.
Cheers,
ar
Per Jacobsen
> This is no longer a text only world.
If you happen to live in a country where the phones are next to free, you
may not care about time to download large graphics. But if you happen to
in a country where phones are EXPENSIVE (most of europe) you don't care
that much about graphics which most of the time is nothing more than a
waste of time.
Andrew Gideon
>Person named "behr...@river.it.gvsu.edu (Zigg)" writes:
>> : Microsoft and Netscape have actually been conservative in their
>> : implementation of extended features. This is no longer a text only
>> : world. Animation and sound are now part of the web and are here to stay!
>> I'd like to see you convince a VT100 that this is no longer a text-only
>> world. Come on, you can do it. I mean, you sure swayed me. Feel free to
>> give me a call once you've managed to get every last piece of equipment
>> capable of accessing the Web up-to-speed with your standards for animation
>> and sound.
>
>He could also try convincing users with 9600bps connections that
>having loads of pictures is very cool. Or people using text-only
>browsers.
>
Don't forget the blind, using a browser which "speaks" the HTML (with different
emphasis on the words (perhaps different volume) based upon certain
markups (ie <P>...</P> causes a pause, <em>...</em> is has more aspiration
(sp?), <strong>...</strong> is louder, etc.)).
The purpose of the web is not to be "pretty"; it is to be "useful". Where
"useful" is not impacted by "pretty", of course, I'm happy to see it. However,
"useful" should be the priority.
I've seen some incredibly poorly designed pages. My favorite is still one
where the background contains the same color as that chosen for the text.
If you use the same (size) font as the original author, you can still read
the text. But, with my configuration (I used a smaller font), the text
cannot be seen on that page.
Note that this is using the same browser as the original author!
I must say, though, that the page is pretty. I cannot read it, but
it is quite nice.
- Andrew Gideon