Microsoft
Raanan
This is a bit off-topic...
But does anyone know what web browser software Microsft is planning on using
for its new Microsoft Network?
I heard months ago that Microsoft may team up with Netscape - but as Win95
approaches, I haven't heard those rumors resurface...
Also, I assume that if Microsoft writes its own software it will be HTML 3
compatible, right??
Any info would be appreciated...
-Raanan
Andrew DeLancey
: Hello.
: This is a bit off-topic...
: But does anyone know what web browser software Microsft is planning on using
: for its new Microsoft Network?
: I heard months ago that Microsoft may team up with Netscape - but as Win95
: approaches, I haven't heard those rumors resurface...
Hopefully this rumor isn't true... just what we need - Microsoft and
Microsoft Jr. running amok on the web. :)
: Also, I assume that if Microsoft writes its own software it will be HTML 3
: compatible, right??
I doubt it. Microsoft is the one Netscape copied its marketing strategy
from, so I'd bet that Microsoft's browser will be every bit as proprietary
and shallow as Netscape's. Actually, it'll probably be so far from the
HTML specs that it will make Netscape seem like a conformant browser... ;)
Andrew
Joerg Rhiemeier
>Hello.
>
>This is a bit off-topic...
>
>But does anyone know what web browser software Microsft is planning on using
>for its new Microsoft Network?
I assume it will be some proprietary stuff resembling Netscrape squared.
>I heard months ago that Microsoft may team up with Netscape - but as Win95
>approaches, I haven't heard those rumors resurface...
Oh, I have heard rumors that Microsoft is buying into Netscrape's
stock! It wouldn't surprise me if they already held their majority.
This would be VERY bad news, of course. (Not that I like Netscrape.
I hate it. And what makes the thing worse is that the W3 Project has
been discarded.)
>Also, I assume that if Microsoft writes its own software it will be HTML 3
>compatible, right??
This is as optimistic as expecting Radovan Karadzic to send food and medicine
to Bihac or Gorazde. Given Microsoft's policy, it would surprise me if they
did NOT introduce lots of proprietary markup which makes sense only in
conjunction with OLE, or something else proprietary to Microsoft.
--
~~o~~| Joerg Rhiemeier, Drosselstieg 4, D-38108 Braunschweig, Germany
~/V\~| phone: +49-531-376134, e-mail: rhie...@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de
~~H~~| Visit the World Wrights' Web! http://www.cs.tu-bs.de/~rhiemeir/
~/_\~| "A spirit with a vision is a dream with a mission." -- Rush
David Baron
>Raanan (barc...@students.wisc.edu) wrote:
[cut]
>: Also, I assume that if Microsoft writes its own software it will be HTML 3
>: compatible, right??
>
>
>I doubt it. Microsoft is the one Netscape copied its marketing strategy
>from, so I'd bet that Microsoft's browser will be every bit as proprietary
>and shallow as Netscape's. Actually, it'll probably be so far from the
>HTML specs that it will make Netscape seem like a conformant browser...
If you look at <http://www.msn.net/> then you will see that there
are a number of new things that MS has added, and they have all the
NS enhancements, like:
<BODY BACKGROUND="bground1.gif" TEXT=#ffffff BGCOLOR=#222222
LINK=#ffff00 VLINK=#00ffff>
and new things:
<A HREF="http://www.microsoft.com">
<IMG ALIGN=RIGHT SRC="to_ms.gif" WIDTH=55 HEIGHT=44
ALT="To Microsoft" BORDER=0>
</A>
<BR CLEAR=ALL>
<HR>
<CENTER>
<FONT FACE=Arial SIZE=3>
<B>
Welcome to Microsoft Internet Central. Where do you want to go today?
</B>
</FONT>
</CENTER>
<BR>
<FONT FACE=Arial SIZE=2>
<A HREF="info.html">
<IMG ALIGN=left SRC="info.gif" BORDER=0 HSPACE=3 VSPACE=3
WIDTH=100 HEIGHT=40 ALT="Info">
</A>
Note the FACE tag for the font.
Of course, at the bottom, they say:
<CENTER>
<FONT SIZE=1 FACE=Arial>
<I>
This page is enhanced for <FONT COLOR=#ff0000><B>Microsoft
Internet Explorer</B></FONT>
</I>
</FONT>
</CENTER>
David Baron
Margaret in Cyberspace
>Hello.
>
>This is a bit off-topic...
>
>But does anyone know what web browser software Microsft is planning on using
>for its new Microsoft Network?
>
Spyglass Mosaic but probably customised.
Margaret
--
***********************
Margaret in Cyberspace:
http://werple.mira.net.au/~margaret
Tim Batchelor
Microsoft of any wrong doing in providing software for access to
the Microsoft Network, and then file another appeal against them
for providing a world wide web browser with it.. Don't most of
the online services now provide web browsers? It is never going
to work, Microsoft is going to win, and it will be late August
when this newsgroup receives its first post from microsoft.com...
Oh well, I hope that they also miss the boat and allow local
internet access providers to continue providing access to the
true internet, in its rawest form, and present the Microsoft
Network in a AOL or Prodigy format. If this is the case, anyone
who is already subscribed to a local provider will not change and
Microsoft will not control us all......
Tim Batchelor
trb...@wilmington.net
Spike
In article <3vkuvo$t...@ra.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de>,
rhie...@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (Joerg Rhiemeier) wrote:
>In article <3vjqvg$1h...@news.doit.wisc.edu>, Raanan
(barc...@students.wisc.edu) wrote:
>>Hello.
>>
>>This is a bit off-topic...
>>
>>But does anyone know what web browser software Microsft is planning on using
>>for its new Microsoft Network?
>
>I assume it will be some proprietary stuff resembling Netscrape squared.
>
>>I heard months ago that Microsoft may team up with Netscape - but as Win95
>>approaches, I haven't heard those rumors resurface...
>
>Oh, I have heard rumors that Microsoft is buying into Netscrape's
>stock! It wouldn't surprise me if they already held their majority.
>This would be VERY bad news, of course. (Not that I like Netscrape.
>I hate it. And what makes the thing worse is that the W3 Project has
>been discarded.)
>
>>Also, I assume that if Microsoft writes its own software it will be HTML 3
>>compatible, right??
>
Richard VandeVelde
On 1 Aug 1995, David Baron wrote:
>
> <CENTER>
> <FONT FACE=Arial SIZE=3>
>
> Note the FACE tag for the font.
>
> Of course, at the bottom, they say:
> <CENTER>
> <FONT SIZE=1 FACE=Arial>
> <I>
> This page is enhanced for <FONT COLOR=#ff0000><B>Microsoft
> Internet Explorer</B></FONT>
Goody! Now we have TWO whipping boys! I won't know who to attack first,
Netscape or Microsoft! Perhaps there is a conspiracy....
-----==========----------=========V V=========----------===========-----
Dick VandeVelde, S.J | (312) 508-3206 [voice]
Loyola University, Chicago | (312) 508-2098 [fax]
Arrupe House | va...@math.luc.edu
6525 N. Sheridan Rd, Chicago 60626 | http://www.math.luc.edu/~vande
-----==========----------=========V V=========----------===========-----
Stan Friesen
|> I hate it. And what makes the thing worse is that the W3 Project has
|> been discarded.)
We have gone over this before.
As far as I can see, this is simply NOT true. It is still going on quite
strongly.
--
s...@elsegundoca.attgis.com sar...@netcom.com
The peace of God be with you.
Frank McNeil
: On 1 Aug 1995, David Baron wrote:
: >
: > <CENTER>
: > <FONT FACE=Arial SIZE=3>
: >
: > Note the FACE tag for the font.
: >
: > Of course, at the bottom, they say:
: > <CENTER>
: > <FONT SIZE=1 FACE=Arial>
: > <I>
: > This page is enhanced for <FONT COLOR=#ff0000><B>Microsoft
: > Internet Explorer</B></FONT>
: Goody! Now we have TWO whipping boys! I won't know who to attack first,
: Netscape or Microsoft! Perhaps there is a conspiracy....
It's called customer demand by some and common sense by others.
The styles you see on a regular computer screen (and paper) should be
allowed in HTML browsable pages. As a customer, I think this is
common sense and I want it TODAY.
frank
David Baron
The fact is, the methods to do these already existed, using style
sheets. It is reasonable to want them in the HTML directly, but
they should ask for them to be put into the standard, and, in the
meantime, do it the harder way. It may even be possible to
define a style sheet that makes these commands correct, but that
has not been done. The companies are going around the standard,
making the standard useless. In other words, they are biting the
hand that FED them.
David Baron
Jonsm
: > <CENTER>
: > <FONT SIZE=1 FACE=Arial>
:
For example: <FONT FACE="windings">cat</FONT>. This will display dingbats
on MS Windows, but what will this show on a Mac or Unix system? Should the
word 'cat' be included in a full text search?
The HTML way of doing this is to use Unicode character references for the
dingbat characters. For example: јљњ. Unicode is a
multiplatform standard and the string would now display the same on all
systems.
As far as I know no Unicode browsers are currently shipping.
Joerg Rhiemeier
>>Also, I assume that if Microsoft writes its own software it will be HTML 3
>>compatible, right??
>
>This is as optimistic as expecting Radovan Karadzic to send food and medicine
>to Bihac or Gorazde.
Oops, what I *really* wanted to write is:
This is as optimistic as expecting Radovan Karadzic to send heavy ordnance
complete with a million tons of ammunition to the Bosnian Muslims for FREE.
But I got carried away. (Not that Karadzic would send food or
medicine to Bihac or Gorazde, but that's another thread, to be
discussed elsewhere.)
Frank McNeil
: ftme...@shell1.best.com (Frank McNeil) wrote:
: >Richard VandeVelde (va...@math.luc.edu) wrote:
: >
: >: On 1 Aug 1995, David Baron wrote:
: >
: >: >
: >: > <CENTER>
: >: > <FONT FACE=Arial SIZE=3>
: >
: >: >
: >: > Note the FACE tag for the font.
: >: >
: >: > <CENTER>
: >: > <FONT SIZE=1 FACE=Arial>
: >: > <I>
: >: > This page is enhanced for <FONT COLOR=#ff0000><B>Microsoft
: >: > Internet Explorer</B></FONT>
: >
: >: Goody! Now we have TWO whipping boys! I won't know who to attack first,
: >: Netscape or Microsoft! Perhaps there is a conspiracy....
: >
: >
: >It's called customer demand by some and common sense by others.
: >
: >The styles you see on a regular computer screen (and paper) should be
: >allowed in HTML browsable pages. As a customer, I think this is
: >common sense and I want it TODAY.
: >
: >frank
: >
: The fact is, the methods to do these already existed, using style
: sheets. It is reasonable to want them in the HTML directly, but
: they should ask for them to be put into the standard, and, in the
: meantime, do it the harder way. It may even be possible to
: define a style sheet that makes these commands correct, but that
: has not been done. The companies are going around the standard,
: making the standard useless. In other words, they are biting the
: hand that FED them.
I think they are just getting the job done in the shortest time
possible. I suspect they are using the standard; but some things just
aren't practical or needed yet, such as MATH and style sheets.
First get the job done right in accordance with normal typographical
standards.
In about a year or so, people will create HTML files, by simply saving
a file to HTML format. The important thing is that important styles
don't get lost in that conversion process.
DO_IT!,
frank
Marcus Edward Hennecke
Frank McNeil <ftme...@shell1.best.com> wrote:
>David Baron (dba...@mail.t-e.k12.pa.us) wrote:
>: The fact is, the methods to do these already existed, using style
>: sheets.
>
>possible. I suspect they are using the standard; but some things just
>aren't practical or needed yet, such as MATH and style sheets.
>First get the job done right in accordance with normal typographical
>standards.
I really can't follow your argument here. Why is <CENTER> and <FONT>
faster to implement than style sheets? What makes you think style
sheets are not practical or needed? I can see how math may be harder
to implement, especially given how unstable the specs are yet, but
style sheets? I mean, every browser implements a style sheet in some
way anyway. In X-Netscape, for example, I can redefine many of the
fonts and font sizes by setting the appropriate X resources. So do
Mosaic and emacs-w3. I bet even the Mac and Windows versions of
Netscape have these parameters set somewhere and it wouldn't be too
hard to make them variable. Why should it be very difficult to do via
style sheets?
>In about a year or so, people will create HTML files, by simply saving
>a file to HTML format. The important thing is that important styles
>don't get lost in that conversion process.
So implement style sheets. What's the hold-up?
--
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>
Marcus Edward Hennecke
Frank McNeil <ftme...@shell1.best.com> wrote:
>Richard VandeVelde (va...@math.luc.edu) wrote:
>: Goody! Now we have TWO whipping boys! I won't know who to attack first,
>: Netscape or Microsoft! Perhaps there is a conspiracy....
>
>
>It's called customer demand by some and common sense by others.
No it isn't. If Netscape and Microsoft were to implement style sheets,
that could be called customer demand and common sense, even if that
meant inventing their own style sheet language. That would be a real
contribution and would really solve the customer's problems and meet
their demands. What they do instead is like selling cars that just
barely run past the warranty. <FONT> and the like are really just
short-term solutions the limitations of which anyone will soon realize
who wants to do serious HTML publishing.
The argument that style sheets aren't here yet is silly. At least
standards for style sheets are emerging, whereas it is certain that
<FONT> and <CENTER> will never make it into the standard. If Netscape
and Microsoft feel they can invent <FONT> and <CENTER> then surely
they could invent a powerful style sheet language. This would even
make sense from a marketing point of view: "Our browser supports style
sheets!" Now wouldn't that be a good selling point! Suddenly we would
see pages with style sheets pop up everywhere and everyone would want
to buy Netscape because the pages look so much better with it. So why
don't they do it? I really don't understand.
Jerry Kindall
McNeil) wrote:
> In about a year or so, people will create HTML files, by simply saving
> a file to HTML format. The important thing is that important styles
> don't get lost in that conversion process.
No, that is not the important thing. The important thing is that they
save HTML files. The Microsoft-specific tags are not HTML. The
Netscape-specific tags are not HTML. Any file which uses these tags are
not HTML. Why?
Because HTML IS NOT A PAGE LAYOUT LANGUAGE. It is a content-description
language. You say, "This is a heading." You do NOT say, "This is
18-point Arial." The reader of your document may say "I want headings to
be displayed in 18-point Arial." Or the reader may say "I want headings
in 69-point Fubar." Or the reader may be using a browser that is not
capable of displaying more than one font.
Style sheets are the HTML 3 way of saying, "Headings are recommended to be
displayed in 18-point Arial." This then applies to ALL headings in your
document, automatically. You don't have to set the font for each one, and
you don't have to change each one if you later decide to change the
recommended font.
The reason you say "This is a heading" and NOT "This is 18-point Arial" is
so that readers could tell your browser, "Show me only the headings" or
"Jump to the next heading." And so that blind users can have headings
read to them in a difference or more emphatic voice. And so that
automated indexers like Webcrawler can see your headings and say, "This
text must be important, since it's a heading; I'll give it a higher
priority in my keyword index." And other such things.
By putting in FONT tags and other such additions, Microsoft and Netscape
are diminishing the ability of HTML to convey the information it was
designed to convey. Furthermore, they are muddying the issue of "what is
HTML" so that newcomers never understand what HTML is designed for.
> DO_IT!,
>
> frank
--
Jerry Kindall (kin...@manual.com) -- Manual Labor -- We Wrote the Book!
Martian
++: > Of course, at the bottom, they say:
++: > <CENTER>
++: > <FONT SIZE=1 FACE=Arial>
++:
++Allowing the FACE on a FONT tag is completely illegal in standard HTML.
Better, the use of <font> is completely illegal in any HTML.
Neither is <center> for that matter.
Abigail
Frank McNeil
: In article <3vu1a7$m...@news1.best.com>, ftme...@shell1.best.com (Frank
: McNeil) wrote:
: > In about a year or so, people will create HTML files, by simply saving
: > a file to HTML format. The important thing is that important styles
: > don't get lost in that conversion process.
Does a presentation-TAGS to A SPECIFIC style-sheet Rosetta Stone exist?
Is it GNU? Is it implemented as software?
: No, that is not the important thing. The important thing is that they
: save HTML files. The Microsoft-specific tags are not HTML. The
: Netscape-specific tags are not HTML. Any file which uses these tags are
: not HTML. Why?
Files that IA save as HTML, may contain the subset of real-world HTML
called HTML 2.0 standard HTML. Hence, It is possible that
Microsoft-specific tags are only enhancements and Microsoft is
complying with the standard; note only HTML 2.0 is close to being
standardized.
: Because HTML IS NOT A PAGE LAYOUT LANGUAGE. It is a content-description
: language. You say, "This is a heading." You do NOT say, "This is
: 18-point Arial." The reader of your document may say "I want headings to
: be displayed in 18-point Arial." Or the reader may say "I want headings
: in 69-point Fubar." Or the reader may be using a browser that is not
: capable of displaying more than one font.
For me "HTML is an application conforming to International Standard
ISO 8879" that can be enhanced with additional presentation TAGS that
shouldn't be incorporated into the officical standard HTML; because
eventually enough Styles may be rendered in the future so that Style
Sheets will be cost effective. It's just an opinion.
For me there is standard HTML and real-world HTML. I prefer to use
parts of real-world HTML in ways that browswers that conform to
standard HTML can still read my pages. I don't know enough about SGML
to know if my real-world HTML files can't be accessed by SGML tools if
I have the SGML declaration and the DTD that validated those files.
Note that many CURRENT good presentational tags can be used as part of
the %text parameter entity (and %notmath) in the draft HTML3.0 DTD.
Gee I wish I had that rosetta stone so I could verify that.
Ah.., I wonder if that is why we don't have <INDENT SIZE.*>. I
better go back and read those Russ Allbery posts to see if he
discussed this issue. Oh, and then there's question about "<CENTER>
and <DIV>."
...
: Style sheets are the HTML 3 way of saying, "Headings are recommended to be
: displayed in 18-point Arial." This then applies to ALL headings in your
: document, automatically. You don't have to set the font for each one, and
: you don't have to change each one if you later decide to change the
: recommended font.
: The reason you say "This is a heading" and NOT "This is 18-point Arial" is
: so that readers could tell your browser, "Show me only the headings" or
: "Jump to the next heading." And so that blind users can have headings
: read to them in a difference or more emphatic voice. And so that
: automated indexers like Webcrawler can see your headings and say, "This
: text must be important, since it's a heading; I'll give it a higher
: priority in my keyword index." And other such things.
: By putting in FONT tags and other such additions, Microsoft and Netscape
: are diminishing the ability of HTML to convey the information it was
: designed to convey. Furthermore, they are muddying the issue of "what is
: HTML" so that newcomers never understand what HTML is designed for.
First a newcomer should crawl before they walk and use anything they
can to help them go forward. Then later they will figure out who the
wise experts are and imitate their actions (while they are stripping
out those !@#%! <center> tags) after browsing the experts HTML pages.
Anyway, since software vendors, like Microsoft, WordPerfect and others
like QuarterDeck(?) will be the people most concerned with tags and
style sheets, they should know when it is cost effective to introduce
Style Sheets.
I haven't done it yet, but I imagine it will be easy to strip out many
of the enhanced presentation tags that some
browser-and-HTML-conversion companies provide like <FONT.*> since they
are really instances of the %notmath parameter entity or attributes.
frank
Frank McNeil
: jo...@aol.com (Jonsm) writes:
: ++: > Of course, at the bottom, they say:
: ++: > <CENTER>
: ++: > <FONT SIZE=1 FACE=Arial>
: ++:
: ++Allowing the FACE on a FONT tag is completely illegal in standard HTML.
: Better, the use of <font> is completely illegal in any HTML.
However since it gets the job done, I don't care as long as it's part of the
%notmath parameter entity in the HTML3.0 DTD.
IMO the HTML police are the browser producers, the HTML court is the market
place and the HTML legislative body is the IETF.
In my mind <FONT.*> doesn't hurt the current implementations of HTML,
because it (as implemented) is very far from having the richness that
HTML3.0 can provide.
Hopefully both of those things will change.
: Neither is <center> for that matter.
I really wish the browser people would provide an alias for <center>
called <DIV ALIGN=center>
<!ELEMENT DIV - - %body.content>
<!ATTLIST DIV
%attrs;
%needs; -- for control of text flow --
align (left|center|right) left -- alignment of following text --
nowrap (nowrap) #IMPLIED -- disable wordwrap --
>
<!ENTITY % body.content "(DIV | %heading | %text | %block | HR | ADDRESS)*">
<!ELEMENT BODY O O (BANNER?, BODYTEXT) +(SPOT)>
<!ATTLIST BODY
%attrs;
background %URI; #IMPLIED -- texture tile for document background --
>
<!ELEMENT BODYTEXT O O %body.content -- dummy element -->
frank
Anthony Boyd
> Martian (abi...@mars.ic.iaf.nl) wrote:
>
> : Better, the use of <font> is completely illegal in any HTML.
>
> However since it gets the job done, I don't care as long as it's part of the
> %notmath parameter entity in the HTML3.0 DTD.
I'm confused. Are you saying <font> is part of the HTML 3.0 DTD? I
thought it was a Netscape only, non-HTML solution. Help.
_______________________________________________________________________
Anthony Boyd, editor of WEBsurf (WWW info) & Whisper (poems/sci-fi) at:
US server: http://www.crl.com/~whisper/SPhome.html
Finland server: http://www.jsp.fi/~whisper/SPhome.html
Frank McNeil
: ftme...@shell1.best.com (Frank McNeil) wrote:
: > Martian (abi...@mars.ic.iaf.nl) wrote:
: >
: > : Better, the use of <font> is completely illegal in any HTML.
: >
: > However since it gets the job done, I don't care as long as it's part of the
: > %notmath parameter entity in the HTML3.0 DTD.
: I'm confused. Are you saying <font> is part of the HTML 3.0 DTD? I
: thought it was a Netscape only, non-HTML solution. Help.
I apologize. It's not part of the HTML 3.0 DTD; however I don't think
it is a Netscape only solution, since browsers don't support enough
style renderings to warrant going all the way to a style sheet that
could only implement a few styles. Hence more browsers will add a
FONT SGML ELEMENT. My second thought was that it should operate like
the %notmath parameter entity.
Why? Perhaps because I don't know any better. Note there are two
other DTD's in the net that give a different listing.
<!ELEMENT (FONT|BASEFONT) - - ANY -- Netscapism @ -- >
<!ELEMENT basefont - - ANY>
Personally, I reject the notion of Netscapisms and the use of "ANY"
in an HTML DTD that I'm going to use. For instance I'm not going to do
<font size="+1"><body>%body.content</body></font>
but I plan to use <font size.*> in the way %notmath can be used.
WRONG! I probably use it like I use %text
<!ENTITY % notmath "%font | %phrase | %special | %misc">
<!ENTITY % text "#PCDATA | SUB | SUP | B | %notmath">
...
<!ENTITY % text "#PCDATA | SUB | SUP | B | %notmath |FONT">
//I haven't thought it through yet.
I consider <FONT SIZE.*> an HTML 2.0 extension that can be described
by modifying part of the draft HTML3.0 DTD.
IMHO all MARKUP I use must fit into a DTD. THIS IS NECESSARY!!
There are two accepted HTML dtd's; one for version 2.0 and one for 3.0.
I prefer to use the 3.0 DTD, even though I write HTML for 2.0 plus the
extensions that Netscape can render and/or HTML 3.0 can provide.
SIDE COMMENT: A lot of this pro this anti that comments are here for
entertainment value. However some things are real. I
consider the accepted DTD's and IET specs real as well
as the fact that they will only be partially
implemented this year. Until a big bully changes the
whole game I choose to use HTML standards to structure
my knowledge about HTML that browsers use. Hopefully
no one will be be able to change the game. The IETF
people provide good organization of this information.
Hence I'm going to use it, and ignore concepts like
"implied paragraphs" or "netscapisms" unitil I get more
experience. This is why I believe I should fit all my
Markup into the standard HTML3.0 DTD. Believe it or
not I think I'm keeping things simple this way.
frank
Frank McNeil
ftme...@best.com
P.S. Hi Anthony Boyd; I may respond to the post where you explainded
what a Paragraph Break was after I finish reading the IETF HTML
3.0 spec, which your post induced to me to read front to back
(thanks :) ). IF I were to respond, I believe part of the post
would read like this
...
: And I was asking, doesn't <PRE> imply a new
: paragraph, as in <P>? That is what happens when the browsers I use render
: <PRE>.
: I think I'll go look at the spec myself.
Well, I'll put my opinion out there then (so it can be corrected).
NO. Neither the HTML 2.0 spec (4 Aug 95) or the Draft HTML3.0 spec
state "imply a new paragraph, as in <P>."
...
Joe Buck
>: Goody! Now we have TWO whipping boys! I won't know who to attack first,
>: Netscape or Microsoft! Perhaps there is a conspiracy....
>
>
>It's called customer demand by some and common sense by others.
>
>allowed in HTML browsable pages. As a customer, I think this is
>common sense and I want it TODAY.
Right, but HTML 3 had a clean way of doing this (style sheets) which is
actually more consistent and easier to use than this <FONT> nonsense.
When you use Microsoft word, you don't individually say you want each
header in Lucida bold; you say, once, in the style sheet that this is
what you want. Unfortunately, with both Netscape and Microsoft spitting
on HTML3 they may as well declare the new standard dead.
--
-- Joe Buck <jb...@synopsys.com> (not speaking for Synopsys, Inc)
Anagrams for "information superhighway": Enormous hairy pig with fan
A rough whimper of insanity
Frank McNeil
: ftme...@shell1.best.com (Frank McNeil) writes:
: >: Goody! Now we have TWO whipping boys! I won't know who to attack first,
: >: Netscape or Microsoft! Perhaps there is a conspiracy....
: >
: >
: >It's called customer demand by some and common sense by others.
: >
: >The styles you see on a regular computer screen (and paper) should be
: >allowed in HTML browsable pages. As a customer, I think this is
: >common sense and I want it TODAY.
: Right, but HTML 3 had a clean way of doing this (style sheets) which is
: actually more consistent and easier to use than this <FONT> nonsense.
: When you use Microsoft word, you don't individually say you want each
: header in Lucida bold; you say, once, in the style sheet that this is
: what you want. Unfortunately, with both Netscape and Microsoft spitting
: on HTML3 they may as well declare the new standard dead.
I hope not; I don't think so (in Netscape's case). I keep thinking
that releasing a style sheet application with only a few styles would
be a bad marketing move. Netscape has enhanced HTML2.0 (hence
"IMPROVED" something) with additional tags. This is great because they
are giving MORE than some thing rather than less than something.
frank
T. Joseph W. Lazio
FM> Joe Buck (jb...@synopsys.com) wrote:
>> ftme...@shell1.best.com (Frank McNeil) writes: >: Goody! Now we
>> have TWO whipping boys! I won't know who to attack first, >:
>> Netscape or Microsoft! Perhaps there is a conspiracy.... > >
>> >It's called customer demand by some and common sense by others. >
>> >The styles you see on a regular computer screen (and paper) should
>> be >allowed in HTML browsable pages. As a customer, I think this
>> is >common sense and I want it TODAY.
>> Right, but HTML 3 had a clean way of doing this (style sheets)
>> which is actually more consistent and easier to use than this
>> <FONT> nonsense. When you use Microsoft word, you don't
>> individually say you want each header in Lucida bold; you say,
>> once, in the style sheet that this is what you want.
>> Unfortunately, with both Netscape and Microsoft spitting on HTML3
>> they may as well declare the new standard dead.
FM> I hope not; I don't think so (in Netscape's case). I keep
FM> thinking that releasing a style sheet application with only a few
FM> styles would be a bad marketing move. Netscape has enhanced
FM> HTML2.0 (hence "IMPROVED" something) with additional tags. This is
FM> great because they are giving MORE than some thing rather than
FM> less than something.
I really don't understand this logic.
Netscape has introduced <FONT>, <CENTER>, and <BLINK> tags (plus some
additional attributes to <BODY>, <HR>, and probably a couple of other
tags). They've admitted that the last one is a joke. <CENTER> could
have been accomplished by implementing the ALIGN=CENTER attribute,
which was in existence before Netscape released their first browser.
That leaves <FONT>. So you can change the size of the font? What
happens if you decide to change your mind? Now you have to search
through all of your documents looking for every occurrance of <FONT>
and change it. Even a minimal style sheet could have done something
like implement <STYLE> in the <HEAD> of the document:
<STYLE>
em.foo: font.size = +2
</STYLE>
and then whenever you wanted to change the size of the
<EM class=foo>font</EM>, one would only have to change the size in one
place.
Moreover, think what happens to this vaunted <FONT> tag if they
decide to put in additional attributes. Now you've got to go through
your document adding a 'family=ariel' attribute everywhere...or you go
to the style sheet and add 'em.foo: font.family = ariel'.
I'll repeat myself. I don't understand the logic that says adding
tags is an improvement when there are existing, better ways to do the
same thing.
--
| e-mail: la...@spacenet.tn.cornell.edu
T. Joseph W. Lazio | phone: (607) 255-6420
| ICBM: 42:20:08 N 76:28:48 W 305 m alt.
Cornell knows I exist?!? | STOP RAPE
Frank McNeil
: >>>>> "FM" == Frank McNeil <ftme...@shell1.best.com> writes:
: FM> Joe Buck (jb...@synopsys.com) wrote:
: >> ftme...@shell1.best.com (Frank McNeil) writes: >: Goody! Now we
: >> have TWO whipping boys! I won't know who to attack first, >:
: >> Netscape or Microsoft! Perhaps there is a conspiracy.... > >
: >> >It's called customer demand by some and common sense by others. >
: >> >The styles you see on a regular computer screen (and paper) should
: >> be >allowed in HTML browsable pages. As a customer, I think this
: >> is >common sense and I want it TODAY.
[deleted]
: FM> I hope not; I don't think so (in Netscape's case). I keep
: FM> thinking that releasing a style sheet application with only a few
: FM> styles would be a bad marketing move. Netscape has enhanced
: FM> HTML2.0 (hence "IMPROVED" something) with additional tags. This is
: FM> great because they are giving MORE than some thing rather than
: FM> less than something.
: I really don't understand this logic.
I think of it as marketing hype talk that works. More of something
is good. Anyway, it was only a guess; I don't work in marketing.
: Netscape has introduced <FONT>, <CENTER>, and <BLINK> tags (plus some
: additional attributes to <BODY>, <HR>, and probably a couple of other
: tags). They've admitted that the last one is a joke. <CENTER> could
: have been accomplished by implementing the ALIGN=CENTER attribute,
: which was in existence before Netscape released their first browser.
: That leaves <FONT>. So you can change the size of the font? What
: happens if you decide to change your mind? Now you have to search
: through all of your documents looking for every occurrance of <FONT>
: and change it. Even a minimal style sheet could have done something
: like implement <STYLE> in the <HEAD> of the document:
: <STYLE>
: em.foo: font.size = +2
: </STYLE>
: and then whenever you wanted to change the size of the
: <EM class=foo>font</EM>, one would only have to change the size in one
: place.
: Moreover, think what happens to this vaunted <FONT> tag if they
: decide to put in additional attributes. Now you've got to go through
: your document adding a 'family=ariel' attribute everywhere...or you go
: to the style sheet and add 'em.foo: font.family = ariel'.
Hopefully you'll pick the tool that will do the job, in the best
way possible. That tool could just end up being Word for Windows in
the near future.
: I'll repeat myself. I don't understand the logic that says adding
: tags is an improvement when there are existing, better ways to do the
: same thing.
Given finite time and resources, Netscape did what it could. Style
sheets would take more time and resources to develop and introduce
to the world that includes people that think formating a disk is a
word processing concept.
Besides, Netscape isn't interested in introducing new tags, it is
interested in implementing workable solutions to problems; TODAY.
frank
Janet Boltjes
: : > Of course, at the bottom, they say:
: : > <CENTER>
: : > <FONT SIZE=1 FACE=Arial>
: :
: Allowing the FACE on a FONT tag is completely illegal in standard HTML.
: For example: <FONT FACE="windings">cat</FONT>. This will display dingbats
: on MS Windows, but what will this show on a Mac or Unix system? Should the
: word 'cat' be included in a full text search?
I think people should be able to specify a typeface/font-family, but not through a clumsy FONT tag, of course. In a stylesheet one could specify "font-family = times". I guess the word cat can be included in a text search, why not? A text searcher is searching the html-files, not the presented version of the browser.
: The HTML way of doing this is to use Unicode character references for the
: dingbat characters. For example: јљњ. Unicode is a
Could you explain this further? I know of character entities and numerical character references in HTML, but both are using a ISO-8879 character set. Are you referring to the same thing here?
--
janet
===================================================================
Janet Boltjes, temporarily at W3C/INRIA Sophia Antipolis
2004, rue des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 SOPHIA ANTIPOLIS Cedex, France
after 1 Sep 1995: University of Groningen, The Netherlands
http://thok.let.rug.nl/janet/
===================================================================
Evan Kirshenbaum
Janet Boltjes <jbol...@www41.inria.fr> wrote:
>jo...@aol.com (Jonsm) writes:
>: The HTML way of doing this is to use Unicode character references for the
>: dingbat characters. For example: јљњ. Unicode is a
>
>Could you explain this further? I know of character entities and
>numerical character references in HTML, but both are using a ISO-8879
>character set. Are you referring to the same thing here?
The consensus on the HTML working group is that the document character
set for HTML should be ISO 10646/Unicode. This should pose little
problem for backward compatibility, as the first 256 characters of
this set are identical to the current document character set, ISO
8859-1, so all 8859-1 documents are already conformant. This is a 16
bit character set which includes many different repertoires [1] and
should go a long way to making this a truly worldwide web.
An internet draft on this (and other similar internationalization
issues in HTML such as identifying language, marking quotations, and
specifying things like dates and currency) entitled
"Internationalization of the Hypertext Markup Language" [2] was just
released. Note that this is still a *very* early draft, although I
believe that many of the important points, specifically the use of
10646, the <Q> entity, and the LANG attribute, are pretty much agreed
upon.
As an aside, the characters referred to above, in this character set
are in the Cyrillic block and are
&1112; U+0458 CYRILLIC SMALL LETTER JE
&1113; U+0459 CYRILLIC SMALL LETTER LJE
&1114; U+045A CYRILLIC SMALL LETTER NJE
Actual Zapf dingbats are between U+2700 and U+27BF (✊ and
#➿). There is also a set of Miscellaneous Dingbats between
#U+2600 and U+266F which includes
&9786; U+263A WHITE SMILING FACE
&9785; U+2639 WHITE FROWNING FACE
so :-) and :-( may not be long for this world!
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories | Sometimes I think the surest sign
1500 Page Mill Road, Building 4A | that intelligent life exists
Palo Alto, CA 94304 | elsewhere in the universe is that
| none of it has tried to contact us.
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com | Calvin
(415)857-7572
[1] ASCII, Latin1, European Latin, Extended Latin, Standard Phonetic,
Modifier Letters, Greek, Cyrillic, Armenian, Hebrew, Arabic,
Devanagari, Bengali, Gurmukhi, Gujarati, Oriya, Tamil, Telugu,
Kannada, Malayalam, Thai, Lao, Tibetan, Georgian, General
Punctuation, Sups & Subs, Currency, Diacritics, Letterlike
Symbols, Number Forms, Arrows, Mathematical Operators,
Miscellaneous Technical, Control Pictures, OCR, Enclosed
Alphanumerics, Form and Chart Components, Blocks, Geometric
Shapes, Miscellaneous Dingbats, Zapf Dingbats, CJK Symbols,
Hiragana, Katakana, Bopomofo, Hangul Elements, CJK Miscellaneous,
Enclosed CJK Letters and Ideographs, CJK Squared Words, CJK
Squared Abbreviations, Korean Hangul Syllables, and a unified set
of Chinese, Japanese and Korean ideographs. (Information
according to _The Unicode Standard_, vol. 1, 1991)
[2] ftp://ds.internic.net/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-html-i18n-00.txt
Chris Gray
So what's the news on MS's WinWhenever browser? Have they tried to
clone (this week's version of) Netscape, or have they invented their
own rival extensions, or are they <gasp> implementing HTML3?
I guess that on past form we can expect one day to read the headline
MS to buy Netscape Corp
at which point it will be time to pronounce Real HTML a Lost Cause ...
--
__________________________________________________________________________
Chris Gray Chris...@bcs.org.uk Compuserve: 100065,2102
Opinions expressed are purely personal unless otherwise stated.
__________________________________________________________________________
Big Dave Schmitt
: So what's the news on MS's WinWhenever browser? Have they tried to
: clone (this week's version of) Netscape, or have they invented their
: own rival extensions, or are they <gasp> implementing HTML3?
Go take a gander at <http://www.msn.net/> and you'll get the idea of just
what kind of stuff their browser will be supporting. Despite the
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD HTML 3.0//EN" "html.dtd"> which
appears at the top of the page, They're using quite a few extensions from
various places.
I've seen the Netscapeisms <center>, <font>, and the <body> attributes
for specifying background and text colors as well as a <map> element which
appears to implement client-side image-maps (like <fig> will for html
3.0). This <map> extension, if you're curious, was introduced by spyglass
and is described at
<URL:http://www.spyglass.com/six/developers_tech_doc4.html>
(Just how many browsers have introduced their own extensions anyway?)
In addition, it looks like they've introuduced their own extension to an
extension, the FACE attribute for the <font> tag.
So, no matter what the DOCTYPE says, their not gonna be doing HTML 3.0
and I can't wait until they dump a few million MSN users on us asking the
proper use of <font face="foo">. (BTW is there a smiley for "heavy
sarcasm covering up deep anguish and frustration?")
-Dave
--
Big Dave Schmitt (__)
Math Major / CS Minor / UCS Consultant U of Md Balto Co (oo)------\
dsc...@gl.umbc.edu http://www.gl.umbc.edu/~dschmi1 \/ | \
Everything above is based solely on my own opinions. ||---w|| *