HTML 3.0 browser for mac?
Jasper Corrigan
accurately browse HTML 3.0 pages (like the few examples I've found for
arena)? If so, what is it, where is it, and, if I can, how do I become a
beta tester for it? I work for a university, and have a plethora of
different types and configurations of Macs to test with/on.
Thanx,
Jasper
--
=============================================================================
"Never send a Monster to do the work of an Evil Scientist."
=============================================================================
Phil Stripling
: In article <3uc11h$2...@access1.digex.net>, jas...@access1.digex.net
: (Jasper Corrigan) wrote:
: > Is there a browser out there (alpha, beta or whatever) that can
: > accurately browse HTML 3.0 pages (like the few examples I've found for
: > arena)?
: Netscape 1.1N (http://www.mcom.com or ftp.mcom.com) is HTML 3.0 compliant.
I keep reading this, but my pages have underlining and strikeouts that
show up in Mosaic and MacWeb, but not Netscape. Netscape also seems to
ignore emphasis and strong tags.
Am I missing something in my copy of Netscape 1.1N?
--
Phil
PGP+ M+ E W++(+) U P+ w--
Steve Scipioni
Andrew DeLancey
: In article <3uc11h$2...@access1.digex.net>, jas...@access1.digex.net
: (Jasper Corrigan) wrote:
How can something be "compliant" with a standard that's still in development?
And Netscape isn't fully compliant with HTML *2.0* either... ;)
Netscape *isn't* HTML 3.0 compliant, and probably won't ever be.
Andrew
Andrew DeLancey
: scip...@nai.net (Steve Scipioni) writes:
: > In article <3uc11h$2...@access1.digex.net>, jas...@access1.digex.net
: > (Jasper Corrigan) wrote:
: > > Is there a browser out there (alpha, beta or whatever) that can
: > > accurately browse HTML 3.0 pages (like the few examples I've found for
: > > arena)?
: > Netscape 1.1N (http://www.mcom.com or ftp.mcom.com) is HTML 3.0 compliant.
: Can you explain why I cannot use the <fig>, <math>, or underlining in
: Netscape?
Because Netscape doesn't implement HTML. It tries some of HTML 2.0, and very
little of 3.0.
Andrew
Thomas Aaron Insel
> In article <3uc11h$2...@access1.digex.net>, jas...@access1.digex.net
> (Jasper Corrigan) wrote:
> > Is there a browser out there (alpha, beta or whatever) that can
> > accurately browse HTML 3.0 pages (like the few examples I've found for
> > arena)?
> Netscape 1.1N (http://www.mcom.com or ftp.mcom.com) is HTML 3.0 compliant.
Can you explain why I cannot use the <fig>, <math>, or underlining in
Netscape?
--
Thomas Insel (tin...@uiuc.edu)
"They [La Prensa] accused us of suppressing freedom of expression. This
was a lie and we could not let them publish it." -- Nelba Blandon,
Interior Ministry Director of Censorship, qtd. in The New York Times, 1984
Michael Maggard
BZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzttttttttt !
1. Netscape 1.1N implements *much* of HTML 2.0 (but not all of it
correctly !).
2. Netscape 1.1N implements *parts* of HTML 3.0 (but not all of it
correctly !).
3. Netscape 1.1N also has parts that are HTML 3.0-esque but *aren't* HTML
3.0.
4. Netscape 1.1N has Netscape-unique tags that many *confuse* with HTML
3.0 but really have nothing to do with mainstream HTML at all.
There isn't a firm HTML 3.0 yet, although large parts of it are pretty
set. Therefore the only browser that truly claim 3.0 is the experimental
browser "Arena" (since it's the test-bed). Netscape marketing *implies*
that it is HTML 3.0 compliant - again, BZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzttttttttt !
If you're looking to produce web pages that will stand up over time, be
easily maintainable, usuable by a range of browsers, and are easily
indexed I suggest that you use the Netscape tags *very* judiciously (and
don't *ever* depend on them).
Michael F. Maggard | mb...@ursa-major.spdcc.com | USA 301/513.5440
Bearcode: b4 f dc g++ k+ s+ r+ "I'm sorry, were you wearing this ?"
W3 Homepage: <http://www.spdcc.com/home/mbear/mbear.html>
Chintan Kiran Amin
> If you're looking to produce web pages that will stand up over time, be
>easily maintainable, usuable by a range of browsers, and are easily
>indexed I suggest that you use the Netscape tags *very* judiciously (and
>don't *ever* depend on them).
The funny thing is that since Arena is the only HTML 3.0 compliant
browser out there, and since HTML 3.0 isn't even complete, and since Netscape
seems to be _very_ pervasive (even on the Illinois Campus, where Mosaic was
created), could we be seeing a defacto HTML standard in gestation? Netscape
the company (is it called Netscape Comm. or Mosaic Comm.?) has a whole lot of
people that are writting pages that are Netscape "friendly" and I have yet to
see pages that say "HTML 3.0 compliant" on them. I'm not advocating either
standard, but I'm just wondering if NeTML will replace HTML 3.0 as the Hyper-
Text language of choice. And if so, will the powers that be concede defeat
or will there be a prolonged war of attrition?
BTW, my page is Netscape friendly.
--
Chintan Amin http://www.uiuc.edu/ph/www/llama mailto:ll...@uiuc.edu
My opinions are my own... At least that's what they tell me.
Orioles CFLs Tar Heels Capitals Bullets Illini Jaguars
Alan J Flavell
tin...@uiuc.edu (Thomas Aaron Insel) writes:
>scip...@nai.net (Steve Scipioni) writes:
>
>> In article <3uc11h$2...@access1.digex.net>, jas...@access1.digex.net
>> (Jasper Corrigan) wrote:
>
>> > Is there a browser out there (alpha, beta or whatever) that can
>> > accurately browse HTML 3.0 pages
been finalised yet, and parts of it are still quite fluid AFAIK."Compliant"?
In what sense? Do you mean that it can reliably ignore the parts
of HTML3 that it doesn't understand (like, most of them)? I don't
think it can quite do that, even. Heck, it isn't even HTML2 "compliant"
in the sense of displaying what it's supposed to. There are fourteen
(AFAIK) characters of ISO8859-1 that are not in the regular Mac fonts,
and I haven't seen a Mac browser yet that displays those character codes
in compliance with the standards. Mac N'scape was no exception.
>Can you explain why I cannot use the <fig>, <math>, or underlining in
>Netscape?
more likely reason...
Andrew DeLancey
: Michael Maggard <mb...@spdcc.com> writes:
: > If you're looking to produce web pages that will stand up over time, be
: >easily maintainable, usuable by a range of browsers, and are easily
: >indexed I suggest that you use the Netscape tags *very* judiciously (and
: >don't *ever* depend on them).
: The funny thing is that since Arena is the only HTML 3.0 compliant
: browser out there, and since HTML 3.0 isn't even complete, and since Netscape
: seems to be _very_ pervasive (even on the Illinois Campus, where Mosaic was
: created), could we be seeing a defacto HTML standard in gestation? Netscape
: the company (is it called Netscape Comm. or Mosaic Comm.?) has a whole lot of
: people that are writting pages that are Netscape "friendly" and I have yet to
: see pages that say "HTML 3.0 compliant" on them. I'm not advocating either
: standard, but I'm just wondering if NeTML will replace HTML 3.0 as the Hyper-
: Text language of choice. And if so, will the powers that be concede defeat
: or will there be a prolonged war of attrition?
Netscape's "extensions" are *all* quickly patched together, and aren't
well thought out at all. The HTML 3.0 proposals, on the other hand, are
vigorously debated and reasoned out by all kinds of experts and users.
And, HTML 3.0's development is *totally* open and visible to any user.
Netscape's development is secret, arbitrary, and motivated completely by
greed. Netscape's marketing strategy goes against all of the principles
the internet and WWW are built on: free access across diverse platforms,
open standards to make interoperability possible, open debate and creation
of standards, etc. Instead, Netscape (and Microsoft soon to follow) are
trying to fragment the web into "market shares" by slipping their proprietary
formats into the true standards, by misleading new users and lying to all
current users.
Every page that claims to be "Netscape friendly" is really just doing free
marketing for Netscape Co. If you enjoy being a free billboard for someone
else's profits, go right ahead and clutter your pages with Netscape creations
that will cause your pages to be essentially unusable to anyone who isn't
using Netscape. Then, a few years (or months) down the road, when Netscape
is replaced by some newer "hot" product, you'll get the pleasure of rewriting
all of your pages to comply with the new proprietary format of the moment...
HTML 3.0 is incredibly powerful and flexible. By the end of the year there
will be dozens of browsers available that will implement it. Until then,
make do with HTML 2.0 tags, and the conversion to 3.0 will be made very
easy for you later on.
Andrew
Steve Scipioni
(Alan J Flavell) wrote:
> In what sense? Do you mean that it can reliably ignore the parts
> of HTML3 that it doesn't understand (like, most of them)? I don't
> think it can quite do that, even. Heck, it isn't even HTML2 "compliant"
> in the sense of displaying what it's supposed to. There are fourteen
> (AFAIK) characters of ISO8859-1 that are not in the regular Mac fonts,
> and I haven't seen a Mac browser yet that displays those character codes
> in compliance with the standards. Mac N'scape was no exception.
>
> >Can you explain why I cannot use the <fig>, <math>, or underlining in
> >Netscape?
>
According to the product specifications link on Netscape's site, it says
that Netscape supports HTML 3.0 tables and specifies something else within
HTML 3.0 that escapes me right now; this is *all* I meant by the product
being HTML 3.0 compliant. Please check their site for more information
about Netscape. I am in no way affiliated with Netscape so I regret to
say that I cannot comment any further.
Steve Scipioni
> that it is HTML 3.0 compliant
If this is true (which is probably entirely possible) then I fell prey to
their marketing scheme. Sorry for the confusion. Didn't realize it would
cause so much upset.
Chintan Kiran Amin
>HTML 3.0 is incredibly powerful and flexible. By the end of the year there
>will be dozens of browsers available that will implement it. Until then,
>make do with HTML 2.0 tags, and the conversion to 3.0 will be made very
>easy for you later on.
Well, the only NeTML tag that I use is the <center> tag, I think. When
I have access to my own computer again, I'll probably go surfing for an HTML
3.0 compatible client, Arena is the only one I know of now, and I think it is
X-Windows only (right?). What others claim and will deliver 3.0 compliance?
I'm also looking for a Mac browser that is user-friendly and reletively
intuitive (the reasons I started using Netscape).
>Andrew
Andrew DeLancey
: According to the product specifications link on Netscape's site, it says
: that Netscape supports HTML 3.0 tables and specifies something else within
Netscape does *not* implement HTML 3.0 tables. It implements something
very similar, but doesn't follow the standard. All of the cellpadding
crap is Netscape's invention, and not part of HTML 3.0. Also, the table
border attribute Netscape implements is different from 3.0. In 3.0,
the border attribute is a yes/no thing: if border is listed as an attribute
then there's a border. Netscape mucks with this by adding a "width"
attribute, so when Netscape users want to get a table without borders,
they do BORDER=0. To a HTML 3.0 compliant browser, since the word
BORDER appears, the table is rendered with a border.
Netscape *lies*, folks. Wake up and smell the coffee! ;)
To see what HTML 3.0 *really* is, go to the source:
Andrew
Richard Pieri
>> Is there a browser out there (alpha, beta or whatever) that can
>> accurately browse HTML 3.0 pages (like the few examples I've found for
>> arena)?
Steve> Netscape 1.1N (http://www.mcom.com or ftp.mcom.com) is HTML 3.0
Steve> compliant.
Wrong.
HTML 3.0 is not finalized as a standard. Because the standard isn't
fixed, yet, you effectively cannot conform to it.
Furthermore, there is plenty in the HTML 3.0 spec that Netscape will not
parse -- strikeouts comes to mind.
--
Rat <rat...@ccs.neu.edu> \ Variety is the spice of life: one day
PGP Public Key: Ask for one today! \ ignore people, the next day annoy them.
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ratinox/ \ -A cat's guide to life
Richard Pieri
>>>Can you explain why I cannot use the <fig>, <math>, or underlining in
>>>Netscape?
Steve> According to the product specifications link on Netscape's site,
Steve> it says that Netscape supports HTML 3.0 tables and specifies
Steve> something else within HTML 3.0 that escapes me right now; this is
Steve> *all* I meant by the product being HTML 3.0 compliant.
Which is to say, not at all. And this is not what you said, that being
Netscape is HTML 3.0 compliant. It's not even close.
Michael Maggard
dela...@herbie.unl.edu writes:
>Netscape's "extensions" are *all* quickly patched together...
>
>Every page that claims to be "Netscape friendly"...
>
>HTML 3.0 is incredibly powerful and flexible...
>
>Andrew
Wow ! REALLY well said ! I hate 'me toos' but that was one succinct,
accurate, insiteful posting ! Please, to those who skiped over it - go
back and reread it.
Jeff Ganson
DeLancey) wrote:
>Netscape does *not* implement HTML 3.0 tables. It implements something
>very similar, but doesn't follow the standard. All of the cellpadding
>crap is Netscape's invention, and not part of HTML 3.0. Also, the table
>border attribute Netscape implements is different from 3.0. In 3.0,
>the border attribute is a yes/no thing: if border is listed as an attribute
>then there's a border. Netscape mucks with this by adding a "width"
>attribute,
Is this necessarily a bad thing? I happen to like the variable border
width, and I know I'm not alone on that. If HTML 3.0 is still not
finalized, then perhaps it should be changed.
We have people here complaining on the one hand that Netscape isn't 3.0
"compliant" because 3.0 isn't a finished standard yet. At the same time
people are complaining that Netscape doesn't stick to that standard. What
the hell?! If it's a useful addition, as I think variable table border
width is, then it ought to be worked into the standard.
--
Jeff Ganson
http://www.halcyon.com/jganson/
Neil Jensen
> scip...@nai.net (Steve Scipioni) writes:
>
> > In article <3uc11h$2...@access1.digex.net>, jas...@access1.digex.net
> > (Jasper Corrigan) wrote:
>
> > > Is there a browser out there (alpha, beta or whatever) that can
> > > accurately browse HTML 3.0 pages (like the few examples I've found for
> > > arena)?
>
> > Netscape 1.1N (http://www.mcom.com or ftp.mcom.com) is HTML 3.0 compliant.
>
> Can you explain why I cannot use the <fig>, <math>, or underlining in
> Netscape?
> --
You can! They just won't show up for people using Mozilla. They will show
up for people using some other browsers. If you use them AND the
equivalent Mozilla tags, everybody (almost) will be able see'em
> Thomas Insel (tin...@uiuc.edu)
> "They [La Prensa] accused us of suppressing freedom of expression. This
> was a lie and we could not let them publish it." -- Nelba Blandon,
> Interior Ministry Director of Censorship, qtd. in The New York Times, 1984
"...it would have made a dreadfully ugly child: but it makes rather a
handsome pig, I think." C.L.Dodgson
--
___________________________________________________________
| Neil Jensen, Albuquerque, New Mexico - On the TX/AZ border|
| ne...@rt66.com | Webmaster: |
| http://www.rt66.com/neil/ | http://lablinks.com/sumeria/ |
Charles Peyton Taylor
> The funny thing is that since Arena is the only HTML 3.0 compliant
>browser out there, and since HTML 3.0 isn't even complete, and since Netscape
Nope. Not any more. Check out UDIWWW at:
http://www.uni-ulm.de/~richter/udiwww/index.htm
This is a MS. Windows brower that incorporates most HTML 3.0 features.
I had wished the browser to do this would have been american, but this
is a german browser (they have an english version now.)
<snip!>
>
> BTW, my page is Netscape friendly.
>
Netscape friendly or netscape exclusive. Many don't realize you can
do things like centering in HTML 3.
Suckers.
>
>
>--
>Chintan Amin http://www.uiuc.edu/ph/www/llama mailto:ll...@uiuc.edu
> My opinions are my own... At least that's what they tell me.
>
> Orioles CFLs Tar Heels Capitals Bullets Illini Jaguars
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.
Thomas Aaron Insel
> In article <3ucpvq$8...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>, tin...@uiuc.edu wrote:
> > Can you explain why I cannot use the <fig>, <math>, or underlining in
> > Netscape?
> You can! They just won't show up for people using Mozilla. They will show
> up for people using some other browsers. If you use them AND the
> equivalent Mozilla tags, everybody (almost) will be able see'em
So what are the equivalent Netscape tags for <fig> & <math>?
Tom
--
Thomas Insel (tin...@uiuc.edu)
"For every problem, there is one solution which is simple, neat and wrong."
-- H. L. Mencken
Michael Maggard
_just_ 3.0 since they have lots of Netscape-specific border-altering
stuff mixed in with 'em... ]
In article <jganson-1807...@blv-pm10-ip3.halcyon.com> Jeff
Ganson, jga...@halcyon.com writes:
>Is this necessarily a bad thing? I happen to like the variable border
>width, and I know I'm not alone on that. If HTML 3.0 is still not
>finalized, then perhaps it should be changed.
Then change it. I'm serious - I know lots of these people working on
the standard, they're not off on some other planet, they haven't been
granted omnescience and deity status, they're not disinterested in what
is needed in 3.0. Get involved, write a letter, post a message (just not
here - do it where it's requested).
>We have people here complaining on the one hand that Netscape isn't 3.0
>"compliant" because 3.0 isn't a finished standard yet. At the same time
>people are complaining that Netscape doesn't stick to that standard. What
>the hell?! If it's a useful addition, as I think variable table border
>width is, then it ought to be worked into the standard.
OK - the standard hasn't been "set", but much of it (not all !) is
pretty finalized, so we can all be fairly confident of what much of it's
going to be. That's how lots of us are pretty confident that much of
what Netscape is pushing off as 3.0 isn't going to be. Beyond that, the
philosophies and views that have led the 3.0 formulation are well
documented - from all of this it isn't difficult to see where what
Netscape is doing conflicts with where 3.0 is going.
To *really* *roughly* sum up the difference in what Netscape is pushing
and what will be in 3.0 is that Netscape is going for explicit display
control in it's stuff and 3.0 is trying to keep them separated out in
style-sheets and other mechanisms. The reason is quite simple - Netscape
is going for brand-name market share and the 3.0 work is going for
long-term supportability, maintainence, and device independance.
Andrew DeLancey
: >HTML 3.0 is incredibly powerful and flexible. By the end of the year there
: >will be dozens of browsers available that will implement it. Until then,
: >make do with HTML 2.0 tags, and the conversion to 3.0 will be made very
: >easy for you later on.
: Well, the only NeTML tag that I use is the <center> tag, I think. When
: I have access to my own computer again, I'll probably go surfing for an HTML
: 3.0 compatible client, Arena is the only one I know of now, and I think it is
: X-Windows only (right?). What others claim and will deliver 3.0 compliance?
: I'm also looking for a Mac browser that is user-friendly and reletively
: intuitive (the reasons I started using Netscape).
<center> is one of the worst Netscape tags to use. It contains an implied
(and undocumented) paragraph break, so if a HTML compliant browser correctly
ignores the <center> instruction, it also ignores the implied <p>. This
can screw up the structure of your page if you're not extremely careful.
It's better to completely avoid <center>. It will *never* be part of any
HTML standard.
AFAIK, Arena is X-only, and probably will be for the near future. I don't
think there are any other 3.0 browsers for the Mac, except for Emacs-W3,
which is rather difficult to set up on a Mac, and is anything but intuitive.
The most user-friendly and generally cool browser I've found is MacWeb.
It's small, fast, has more display control for users (you can change
fonts, sizes, color, bold/italic, etc. for *each* element individually,
instead of just "proportional font" and "fixed font" in Netscape), and
MacWeb is totally free!
Andrew
Alan J Flavell
jga...@halcyon.com (Jeff Ganson) writes:
>In article <3ugm1h$5...@crcnis3.unl.edu>, dela...@herbie.unl.edu (Andrew
>DeLancey) wrote:
>
>>Netscape does *not* implement HTML 3.0 tables. It implements something
>
>Is this necessarily a bad thing?
necessarily a bad thing - period. Adding proprietary features
that are otherwise compatible with the standard may be a perfectly
fine thing to do, and allows commercial operators to move into
niches whose needs have not been addressed by ordinary Web stuff.
The HTML standards have been thoughtfully designed to accommodate
that kind of thing: just so long as the added-value constructions
are syntactically OK, ordinary browsers are designed to ignore them.
(Unfortunately, some of the Netscape extensions even managed
to break that simple rule).
>I happen to like the variable border
>width, and I know I'm not alone on that. If HTML 3.0 is still not
>finalized, then perhaps it should be changed.
out with them.
>We have people here complaining on the one hand that Netscape isn't 3.0
>"compliant" because 3.0 isn't a finished standard yet.
Netscape has introduced 1/ features that parallel some things that
were already quite firm in HTML3, but they did it in an incompatible
way, 2/ introduced non-HTML constructions that, if used, can break
properly-compliant browsers, instead of being harmlessly ignored AS
IS DESIGNED INTO HTML.
Nobody is complaining that they didn't implement features that
haven't been designed yet. You're just confusing the issue by
saying that.
>At the same time
>people are complaining that Netscape doesn't stick to that standard. What
>the hell?!
hell". However, many of us here take it a little more seriously.
Look, if I were a commercial developer, it would be the easist thing
in the world for me to invent a new command, set colour to hexadecimal
something or other, and stick it into my purported HTML, in spite of
the fact that it goes against all the precepts of HTML. It's trivial
to think up, it's trivial to implement, it's something that your more
simpleminded customers will think they need and they'll leap at the
opportunity to buy it, condemning their web authors to the drudgery
of messing about with commands to set colours for evermore, instead of
concentrating on describing the structure of their documents and leaving
the drudgery of presenting it nicely to the browser developers.
Wonderful, isn't it? These browser developers have wriggled out of
designing browsers that do a good job of presenting the marked-for-
content HTML, and they have shifted the drudgery back to the
authors - one of the things that HTML was meant to avoid.
It must have cost a matter of minutes to add that kind of quick hack
to the browser code. Designing and implementing something that's
really _worth_ having takes a lot longer, and if the co. get in there
fast enough, they may even convince their customers that the proprietary
hacks are preferable to the real thing. A certain large three-letter
corporation used to do that a lot, and look where it's got them.
Chintan Kiran Amin
>ca3...@meibm11.cen.uiuc.edu (Chintan Kiran Amin) wrote:
>>Michael Maggard <mb...@spdcc.com> writes:
>> The funny thing is that since Arena is the only HTML 3.0 compliant
>>browser out there, and since HTML 3.0 isn't even complete, and since Netscape
>Nope. Not any more. Check out UDIWWW at:
>http://www.uni-ulm.de/~richter/udiwww/index.htm
>This is a MS. Windows brower that incorporates most HTML 3.0 features.
>I had wished the browser to do this would have been american, but this
>is a german browser (they have an english version now.)
If they make a X-Windows or Mac browser, I'll buy/use it. I can't
stand Windows.
><snip!>
>Suckers.
Huh. Throwing insults. Maybe Sen. Exon should work on banning YOU
from the Net, and not "porn".
Michael Maggard
Ganson, jga...@halcyon.com writes:
>By "what the hell?!" I meant that it seems like there are some people who
>will attack Netscape no matter what they do.
I donąt know of anyone who started out with any personal animosity
towards Netscape or itsą products; however after endless rounds of
countering their marketing misinformation one can become annoyed.
>They're acting so
>holier-than-thou that they're missing the practical reality that Netscape
>is quite probably becoming a de facto standard. I'm not saying that
>*that* is a good thing; but I am saying that to ignore that reality is to
>stick your head in the sand.
Netscape is only a standard if youąre counting the number of small
sites thrown together by people unaware of whatąs going on the the
web-development community. If you want to go by what the powerhouse
sites are developing and deploying youąll find precious little
Ścommittmentą to Netscape. Indeed, if you look at the numbers youąll
find that while Netscape browsers have good market penetration itąs by no
means comprehensive, and frankly their servers arenąt selling too fast.
>There is a reason Netscape is the most popular graphical web browser --
>people like the "extensions".
How about łfree˛, łbest of the lot˛, łwell publicized˛, łmultiple
platforms˛, łfairly stable˛, and łspeedy˛. I donąt think most Śsurfersą
have a clue to the difference between <center> and <p align=center>, nor
do they care in the slightest. The łextensions˛ are completely
irrelevent to them.
> And yet the need for universal standards is
>obvious. I'd like a browser that let me use some of the Netscape
>extensions, but which also gave me more control over styles. But I think
>the only way to stop Netscape from becoming the de facto standard is for
>HTML 3.0 to co-opt Netscape by adopting its more popular extensions. If
>other browsers support the same "html" features and extensions, that will
>force Netscape to compete on the basis of its flexibility, stability, and
>speed (which aren't great right now), its feature set (i.e. bookmark
>handling -- again, only so-so for Netscape), and its presentation of the
>standardized html (completely a matter of subjective taste).
I donąt really see it as a horse race - everyone knows where the
breeding is and which bloodline will beget the best foals. My only
interest is to minimize the confusion while the smaller sites get hooked
into the development process. The only HTML feature Iąve heard you say
you want is the table padding stuff. Well, *** IMHO *** this is the sort
of thing that doesnąt belong in HTML-proper (itąs purely presentation and
specific only to some browsers) but in a style-sheet. Thatąs *** my ***
opinion and I really strongly suggest you scoot over to the WWW home
pages and make your argument (Iąm not going to argue against it but time
is beginning to run short on adding new features).
As to browser design, thatąs a separate (but connected issue if the
rumors leaking out of Netscape are accurate). There are other browsers
coming out all of the time and Iąm sure the entire class of software will
start to mature in the next few months. If itąs better bookmarks you
want on the Mac you can use PowerTalk for all your URLs or use Clay
Basket to manage Netscape bookmarks.
Finally, how the presentation is made is steadily becoming more
customizable as developers add in these features. For example, most
people I know have reset their headers 1-6 in Netscape to a more
reasonable progression. I expect in 6 months itąll all be completely
customizable.
david s. broudy
DeLancey) wrote:
> The most user-friendly and generally cool browser I've found is MacWeb.
> It's small, fast, has more display control for users (you can change
> fonts, sizes, color, bold/italic, etc. for *each* element individually,
> instead of just "proportional font" and "fixed font" in Netscape), and
> MacWeb is totally free!
Ugh.
Have they ever released a finished version? MacWeb has been in *alpha* for
nearly (or more than, I forget) a year. The current alpha (3.2) was last
updated on March 7. Mosaic 2.0 has been in Beta Hell for well over a year.
Neither runs well (or at all) on both of my Macs.
Until someone comes out with a more stable product that actually works
better than NS, I'm sticking with it, warts and all.
-------------
bro...@mizar.usc.edu -- http://www-bcf.usc.edu/~broudy/ /=/ \=\
Will that be one lump, or two? ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ \=/
It's an all-new URL!
Jeff Ganson
(Alan J Flavell) wrote:
>>We have people here complaining on the one hand that Netscape isn't 3.0
>>"compliant" because 3.0 isn't a finished standard yet.
>
>Either you haven't understood yet, or you're being obtuse.
Do you want to start a flame war? Shall we start calling names?
>>At the same time
>>people are complaining that Netscape doesn't stick to that standard. What
>>the hell?!
>
>You are welcome to your view that the Web is unimportant, "what the
>hell".
Where did I say that the Web was unimportant? That's a straw man
misrepresentation of what I said. If you're not interested in conducting
a good-faith discussion of the issue, if you're more interested in making
points by misrepresentation and ad hominem, let's just drop it.
By "what the hell?!" I meant that it seems like there are some people who
will attack Netscape no matter what they do. They're acting so
holier-than-thou that they're missing the practical reality that Netscape
is quite probably becoming a de facto standard. I'm not saying that
*that* is a good thing; but I am saying that to ignore that reality is to
stick your head in the sand.
There is a reason Netscape is the most popular graphical web browser --
people like the "extensions". And yet the need for universal standards is
obvious. I'd like a browser that let me use some of the Netscape
extensions, but which also gave me more control over styles. But I think
the only way to stop Netscape from becoming the de facto standard is for
HTML 3.0 to co-opt Netscape by adopting its more popular extensions. If
other browsers support the same "html" features and extensions, that will
force Netscape to compete on the basis of its flexibility, stability, and
speed (which aren't great right now), its feature set (i.e. bookmark
handling -- again, only so-so for Netscape), and its presentation of the
standardized html (completely a matter of subjective taste).
--
Jeff Ganson
http://www.halcyon.com/jganson/
Alan J Flavell
jga...@halcyon.com (Jeff Ganson) writes:
(about Netscape "extensions" ought to be adopted by HTML3)
Apart from the "extensions" that are syntactically invalid and could
not be adopted into HTML3, I think we'll just have to agree to
disagree. Netscape have some interesting mechanisms in other areas,
which I'm not going to address here at all. And their browsers give
quite attractive results (which is not to say that other browsers
don't give attractive results too). Here I'm confining myself
strictly to commenting on HTML "extensions".
Their presentation-based markups are, in the opinion of many who
have a view of what HTML is intended for, misconceived. They are
asked for by many people who wish that HTML were a page definition
language - they were probably quite easy to implement - but I adhere
to the view that, far from being enhancements, are a leap backwards
to the drudgery of a previous generation of DTP, and quite foreign
to the aims and intentions of HTML.
However, if Netscape could at least get their syntax sorted out, they
could be tolerated as proprietary variations on "official" HTML,
and we could all get along reasonably comfortably together, even though
we felt that Netscape was misguided vis a vis HTML.
>>>We have people here complaining on the one hand that Netscape isn't 3.0
>>>"compliant" because 3.0 isn't a finished standard yet.
>>
>>Either you haven't understood yet, or you're being obtuse.
>
>Do you want to start a flame war? Shall we start calling names?
My apologies.
However, I do repeat that no-one is seriously criticising Netscape
on the grounds that they failed to implement something that has not
yet been defined. Anyone who were to present the argument on that
basis could properly be called "obtuse", and I have to admit that
your argument looked as if it was doing just that.
>>You are welcome to your view that the Web is unimportant, "what the
>>hell".
>
>Where did I say that the Web was unimportant? That's a straw man
>misrepresentation of what I said.
then. I am accustomed to the slang term "what the hell" signifying
that one cares not for the consequences of one's actions. I'm sorry
if you meant something different.
Jeff Ganson
DeLancey) wrote:
>: By "what the hell?!" I meant that it seems like there are some people who
>: will attack Netscape no matter what they do. They're acting so
>: holier-than-thou that they're missing the practical reality that Netscape
>: is quite probably becoming a de facto standard. I'm not saying that
>: *that* is a good thing; but I am saying that to ignore that reality is to
>: stick your head in the sand.
>
>
>No one is ignoring the fact that Netscape *wants* to become a "de facto"
>standard. What we're doing it trying to convince the new users that don't
>know any better that Netscape *isn't* a standard. HTML 3.0 is a far more
>powerful and useful standard than Netscape's silly inventions will ever
>be, and HTML 3.0 is an *open* standard (which means the development process
>is open to anyone who wants to participate).
Yeah, yeah. And Beta is superior to VHS. I don't disagree with you on
the ideal of one universal, open standard. I hate it when people (usually
in the press) refer to the WWW as "Mosaic", and I hope they don't refer to
it as "Netscape" a year from now. But you ignore practical reality at
your peril.
> why not
>encourage people to stop using the "extensions" and instead start using
>real HTML. HTML 3.0 can do things that Netscape's short-sighted hacks
>will never be able to do. HTML 3.0 is flexible, powerful, and will work
>for years to come.
. . .
> In spite of Netscape's
>lip service to open standards, they've shown repeatedly that they
>are only interested in doing things *their* way.
If Netscape isn't "playing by the rules," then by all means, spread the
word, and pressure them to do so. But don't ignore the fact that people
are using Netscape because they like the way it looks. Maybe that misses
the point of HTML, but it's reality.
>If you stray down
>the proprietary "enhancement" path, you'll be very sorry a few months
>down the road, when you have to re-write all your pages so they'll work
>with the latest "hot" browser.
Unless, of course, by that time Netscape has captured most of the web
browsing public. People will not simply take on faith your assertion that
HTML 3.0 is "more powerful" and "more flexible." Look at the subject
line: There is no HTML 3.0 browser for the Mac. How long until there is
one? Okay, maybe we should just all wait for this Great Thing that is
promised to be around the corner. But I'm afraid that that isn't human
nature. Netscape's here now, and it's fulfilling people's needs and
entertaining them. If there isn't some movement on HTML 3.0 soon -- if
there isn't a working browser fully supporting it on all major platforms
-- then I don't think there's really much question who'll "be very sorry a
few months down the road." Maybe that's not something you're happy about;
maybe that mentality shows a lack of vision, or a lack of understanding of
what HTML is supposed to be; maybe I'd agree with you; but it's reality.
--
Jeff Ganson
http://www.ganson.com/jganson/
Andrew DeLancey
: In article <173E0D4B6S...@cernvm.cern.ch>, FLA...@cernvm.cern.ch
: (Alan J Flavell) wrote:
: >>We have people here complaining on the one hand that Netscape isn't 3.0
: >>"compliant" because 3.0 isn't a finished standard yet.
: >
: >Either you haven't understood yet, or you're being obtuse.
: Do you want to start a flame war? Shall we start calling names?
: >>At the same time
: >>people are complaining that Netscape doesn't stick to that standard. What
: >>the hell?!
: >
: >You are welcome to your view that the Web is unimportant, "what the
: >hell".
: Where did I say that the Web was unimportant? That's a straw man
: misrepresentation of what I said. If you're not interested in conducting
: a good-faith discussion of the issue, if you're more interested in making
: points by misrepresentation and ad hominem, let's just drop it.
: By "what the hell?!" I meant that it seems like there are some people who
: will attack Netscape no matter what they do. They're acting so
: holier-than-thou that they're missing the practical reality that Netscape
: is quite probably becoming a de facto standard. I'm not saying that
: *that* is a good thing; but I am saying that to ignore that reality is to
: stick your head in the sand.
No one is ignoring the fact that Netscape *wants* to become a "de facto"
standard. What we're doing it trying to convince the new users that don't
know any better that Netscape *isn't* a standard. HTML 3.0 is a far more
powerful and useful standard than Netscape's silly inventions will ever
be, and HTML 3.0 is an *open* standard (which means the development process
is open to anyone who wants to participate). Netscape's development is
secret, arbitrary, and motivated by quarterly profit reports.
: There is a reason Netscape is the most popular graphical web browser --
: people like the "extensions". And yet the need for universal standards is
: obvious. I'd like a browser that let me use some of the Netscape
: extensions, but which also gave me more control over styles. But I think
: the only way to stop Netscape from becoming the de facto standard is for
: HTML 3.0 to co-opt Netscape by adopting its more popular extensions. If
: other browsers support the same "html" features and extensions, that will
: force Netscape to compete on the basis of its flexibility, stability, and
: speed (which aren't great right now), its feature set (i.e. bookmark
: handling -- again, only so-so for Netscape), and its presentation of the
: standardized html (completely a matter of subjective taste).
Here's another idea: instead of encouraging more browsers to implement
Netscape's "extensions" (which aren't extensions, and don't have any
real documentation and don't follow the clearly-documented extension
procedure that's been part of HTML from the very beginning), why not
encourage people to stop using the "extensions" and instead start using
real HTML. HTML 3.0 can do things that Netscape's short-sighted hacks
will never be able to do. HTML 3.0 is flexible, powerful, and will work
for years to come. Netscape's "extensions" don't even work properly in
all versions of *Netscape*, much less in any other real browsers.
The way to make HTML 3.0 "co-opt Netscape" is NOT by having the silly
Netscape inventions added to the standard. <center> *can't* be added,
since it totally violates all HTML rules and can't be described in any
meaningful way as describing content.
The way to co-opt Netscape is to push other browser developers (and
Netscape) to correctly implement HTML 3.0. In spite of Netscape's
lip service to open standards, they've shown repeatedly that they
are only interested in doing things *their* way. If you stray down
the proprietary "enhancement" path, you'll be very sorry a few months
down the road, when you have to re-write all your pages so they'll work
with the latest "hot" browser. The internet and the WWW only work because
of open standards and cross-platform interoperability. If Netscape,
Microsoft, and the like take over, the internet will die. Don't be
fooled by the corporate marketing departments!
Andrew
Michael Maggard
Ganson, jga...@ganson.com writes:
>Yeah, yeah. And Beta is superior to VHS. I don't disagree with you on
>the ideal of one universal, open standard. I hate it when people (usually
>in the press) refer to the WWW as "Mosaic", and I hope they don't refer to
>it as "Netscape" a year from now. But you ignore practical reality at
>your peril.
I think much of the ongoing friction between the "pure HTML crowd" and
the "it's here, it works', it looks pretty on my desktop" crowd is one of
experience.
For those who've been around the information industry awhile, are
experienced in large, long-term, cross-platform projects standards are
*critical*. Having seen the mess that the various competing unix
'standards' created, having seen too many hot products come down the road
only to self-immoliate, having suffered through the drudgery of getting
various SQL 'dialects' to interoperate, most are 'twice shy'. Things like
Netscapes' >breaking< of the HTML language (frankly I think you'll find
little complaint regarding their browser or their adding *extensions* to
HTML) sets off warning bells: how well will they interoperate; will I get
locked into an expensive or orphaned product line, by committing myself
to the varient what will I miss from the rest of the market, how will I
handle others (customers, vendors, buy-outs, etc) who use a different
varient ?...
For the PC based site, usually a medium or large sized LAN, used to a
quickly moving environment where software adheres to a few common
standards created by the dominant software manufacturers, where
information isn't typically accessed across-the-company over a long
period of time (20 years) with a variety of tools on a number of
platforms (evolving hardware, programs, and operating systems), where
critical information doesn't traditionally move in and out of the company
electronically (I don't mean e-mail, I mean shared databases etc) this
isn't a big issue and so people don't have the same paranoid streak.
Their professional mindset is "we'll find a solution when it becomes a
problem", "I control the baseline, I know I can support this", and simply
"it does what I need it to". This isn't a bad thing, it just reflects a
different environment, a different history, a different set of goals.
However, I think that the former, the ones who've 'been there' on this
sort of thing should be listened to. The web is something new to most
people - it's *big*, it's *comprehensive*, it's *co-operative* - It calls
for the long term, broad view. I don't want to commit myself for Nn yars
to a volitile company barely 2 years old that's already heading off in
it's own direction...
Neil Jensen
> ne...@rt66.com (Neil Jensen) writes:
>
> > In article <3ucpvq$8...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>, tin...@uiuc.edu wrote:
> > > Can you explain why I cannot use the <fig>, <math>, or underlining in
> > > Netscape?
>
> > You can! They just won't show up for people using Mozilla. They will show
> > up for people using some other browsers. If you use them AND the
> > equivalent Mozilla tags, everybody (almost) will be able see'em
>
> So what are the equivalent Netscape tags for <fig> & <math>?
>
>---
For <fig> use <img> for <math> i don't know, nor do i much care since i
don't even know what it does. Perhaps someday......
Andrew DeLancey
: In article <3um4u6$d...@crcnis3.unl.edu>, dela...@herbie.unl.edu (Andrew
: DeLancey) wrote:
: >: By "what the hell?!" I meant that it seems like there are some people who
: >: will attack Netscape no matter what they do. They're acting so
: >: holier-than-thou that they're missing the practical reality that Netscape
: >: is quite probably becoming a de facto standard. I'm not saying that
: >: *that* is a good thing; but I am saying that to ignore that reality is to
: >: stick your head in the sand.
: >
: >
: >No one is ignoring the fact that Netscape *wants* to become a "de facto"
: >standard. What we're doing it trying to convince the new users that don't
: >know any better that Netscape *isn't* a standard. HTML 3.0 is a far more
: >powerful and useful standard than Netscape's silly inventions will ever
: >be, and HTML 3.0 is an *open* standard (which means the development process
: >is open to anyone who wants to participate).
: Yeah, yeah. And Beta is superior to VHS. I don't disagree with you on
: the ideal of one universal, open standard. I hate it when people (usually
: in the press) refer to the WWW as "Mosaic", and I hope they don't refer to
: it as "Netscape" a year from now. But you ignore practical reality at
: your peril.
: > why not
: >encourage people to stop using the "extensions" and instead start using
: >real HTML. HTML 3.0 can do things that Netscape's short-sighted hacks
: >will never be able to do. HTML 3.0 is flexible, powerful, and will work
: >for years to come.
: . . .
: > In spite of Netscape's
: >lip service to open standards, they've shown repeatedly that they
: >are only interested in doing things *their* way.
: If Netscape isn't "playing by the rules," then by all means, spread the
: word, and pressure them to do so. But don't ignore the fact that people
: are using Netscape because they like the way it looks. Maybe that misses
Many people who write "Netscape enhanced" pages *don't know* that they're
not using correct HTML, and are surprised to learn that their pages don't
look "good" on most browsers. And I don't think most users get Netscape
because they like the way it looks. They get it because it's advertised
heavily. They get it because "everyone's using it", without realizing that
the source of the "everyone's using it" line is Netscape's marketing dept.
: the point of HTML, but it's reality.
: >If you stray down
: >the proprietary "enhancement" path, you'll be very sorry a few months
: >down the road, when you have to re-write all your pages so they'll work
: >with the latest "hot" browser.
: Unless, of course, by that time Netscape has captured most of the web
: browsing public. People will not simply take on faith your assertion that
: HTML 3.0 is "more powerful" and "more flexible." Look at the subject
: line: There is no HTML 3.0 browser for the Mac. How long until there is
6 months ago, nobody had even heard of Netscape. Right now, Mosaic supports
more advanced features from HTML 3.0 than Netscape does. Mosaic offers more
user control over the rendering of pages (*every* element's appearance can
be altered independently)..
: one? Okay, maybe we should just all wait for this Great Thing that is
: promised to be around the corner. But I'm afraid that that isn't human
: nature. Netscape's here now, and it's fulfilling people's needs and
: entertaining them. If there isn't some movement on HTML 3.0 soon -- if
Ah... here's the real truth. Netscape users are after entertainment. Most
web users are after information, with entertainment as a non-essential and
frivolous sideline.
: there isn't a working browser fully supporting it on all major platforms
: -- then I don't think there's really much question who'll "be very sorry a
: few months down the road." Maybe that's not something you're happy about;
: maybe that mentality shows a lack of vision, or a lack of understanding of
: what HTML is supposed to be; maybe I'd agree with you; but it's reality.
By all the recent estimates, Netscape's overall share of users is sliding.
There's some new Windoze browser that was just released that apparently
fully supports 3.0. By the end of the year, there will be several 3.0
browsers for the Mac. Maybe one of them will be Netscape. Maybe not.
Regardless of which companies survive, I know that I'll still be around,
and that all the documents I create using standard HTML will be usable.
Andrew
Jan Snellman
> more advanced features from HTML 3.0 than Netscape does. Mosaic offers more
> user control over the rendering of pages (*every* element's appearance can
> be altered independently)..
Netscape is certainly not perfect when it comes to HTML 3.0
compliance, but I do think it is way better than Mosaic. In
particular, the pagination algorithm for tables in Mosaic leaves much
to be desired. The Mosaic team is aware of this, it is on their Know
bugs list, and they are undoubtedly going to fix this and dazzle the
world with a bright, sparkling new product. But right now, for
displaying large tables, Netscape yields more correct and much faster
results.
Check
http://wwwes.matematik.su.se/cgi-bin/CALBOOK/cal_show_day/r1+r2+r3+r4+r5+r6+r7+r8:1995:8:6
with Netscape 1.1N and then with the latest Mosaic beta, time the
repagination time when scrolling etc, and you will have to agree.