New browser usage statistics: Netscape 82.6%
Peter Jennings
I did a little analysis of over 1 million visits to
1284 WWW iAudit sites to determine which browsers are being used.
The results are viewable at: http://mall.turnpike.net/~jc/
-- pet...@netcom.com
URL: http://mall.turnpike.net/~jc/
HIDX076 Index local html, gifs, jpgs, Netscape cache. Output to html.
MagicKey Popup URL grabber/database/typer for DOS/Win3.1.
BatMan Run DOS BAT files from Netscape and other WWW browsers.
Anthony Boyd
> I did a little analysis of over 1 million visits to
> 1284 WWW iAudit sites to determine which browsers are being used.
How does iAudit track hits from non-graphical users, such as those with
Lynx or with auto-load images off? And how does it track AOL & Prodigy
readers, where the iAudit image is probably cached for life?
www.survey.net, which tracks non-graphical users as well as those from
AOL, Prodigy, and Compuserve, shows the big three up at 54 percent.
Interesting discrepancy.
_______________________________________________________________________
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
Tom Neff
Anthony Boyd <whi...@crl.com> wrote:
>pet...@netcom.com (Peter Jennings) wrote:
>
>> I did a little analysis of over 1 million visits to
>> 1284 WWW iAudit sites to determine which browsers are being used.
>
>How does iAudit track hits from non-graphical users, such as those with
>Lynx or with auto-load images off? And how does it track AOL & Prodigy
>readers, where the iAudit image is probably cached for life?
>
>www.survey.net, which tracks non-graphical users as well as those from
>AOL, Prodigy, and Compuserve, shows the big three up at 54 percent.
>
>Interesting discrepancy.
Entirely predictable if you visit IAudit's wreck of a site. Despite
their impressive sounding name, IAudit is essentially fluff and useless
for characterizing real Web usage. I don't know why they don't just
report 99% Netscape usage! There's nothing worse than *half-hearted*
wish fulfillment... :-)
(I wouldn't necessarily trust www.survey.net either, but that's another
story.)
--
Tom Neff :: tn...@panix.com :: <URL:http://www.panix.com/~tneff/>
Marcus Edward Hennecke
Anthony Boyd <whi...@crl.com> wrote:
>pet...@netcom.com (Peter Jennings) wrote:
>
>> I did a little analysis of over 1 million visits to
>> 1284 WWW iAudit sites to determine which browsers are being used.
>
>How does iAudit track hits from non-graphical users, such as those with
>Lynx or with auto-load images off? And how does it track AOL & Prodigy
>readers, where the iAudit image is probably cached for life?
What is really funny is that the statistic itself has comments in it
that explain why it is inaccurate:
7 PRODIGY-WB 12647 1.2% Low due to page cache.
12 aolbrowser 3794 0.4% Low due to page cache.
23 Lynx 842 0.1% Low due to GIF not viewed.
I would suggest (although I can't prove it) that there is at least one
other factor that biases this statistic towards Netscape and other
"kewl" browsers: Many of the sites that use iAudit to gather
statistics and display a counter in their page also make use of
Netscapeisms, which in turn attract more Netscape users than users of
other browsers.
--
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>
Phil Stripling
>SNIP<
: Entirely predictable if you visit IAudit's wreck of a site. Despite
: their impressive sounding name, IAudit is essentially fluff and useless
: for characterizing real Web usage. I don't know why they don't just
: report 99% Netscape usage! There's nothing worse than *half-hearted*
: wish fulfillment... :-)
: (I wouldn't necessarily trust www.survey.net either, but that's another
: story.)
What about George Carmichael's Logger?
--
Phil
PGP+ M+ E W++(+) U P+ w--
Tom Neff
>Tom Neff (tn...@panix.com) wrote:
>: (I wouldn't necessarily trust www.survey.net either, but that's another
>: story.)
>
>What about George Carmichael's Logger?
Ask me when it comes back online! Have you actually looked lately? Dead
since 5 July - he couldn't keep up, which is no surprise for a Canadian
college account.
If you want to know who uses the part of the Web you care about, there is
no substitute for a script-based log tied to the target resource.
Nothing else is worth spit, except for making peabrained arguments here.
Phil Stripling
: no substitute for a script-based log tied to the target resource.
: Nothing else is worth spit, except for making peabrained arguments here.
Yeah, but can you tell us how you _really_ feel about it?
Stephen Caplan
Tom Neff (tn...@panix.com) wrote:
:What about George Carmichael's Logger?
Geo's counter only tracks graphical accesses, and would likely suffer
from the same troubles with caches as IAudit. Besides, George has got
enough concerns above giving stats on browsers.
tn...@panix.com (Tom Neff) writes:
:Ask me when it comes back online! Have you actually looked lately? Dead
:since 5 July - he couldn't keep up, which is no surprise for a Canadian
:college account.
Why is that no surprise because it's based at a Canadian University?
George is providing a service to the world, which no one else in their
right mind would even try to attempt, and he's doing a damned good job at
it. The only problem was that his server couldn't keep up. That problem
has now been remedied. Geo's counter will be back online within the next
week or two.
Stephen Caplan
Archon Computing
http://www.cban.com/online/archon.html
Tom Neff
Stephen Caplan <cap...@nyquist.ee.ualberta.ca> wrote:
>
>Tom Neff (tn...@panix.com) wrote:
>:What about George Carmichael's Logger?
No I didn't - get your quotes right.
>tn...@panix.com (Tom Neff) writes:
>:Ask me when it comes back online! Have you actually looked lately? Dead
>:since 5 July - he couldn't keep up, which is no surprise for a Canadian
>:college account.
>
> Why is that no surprise because it's based at a Canadian University?
Canada has nothing to do with it, although I see we pushed Ye Olde Hot
Button with that one. :-) No general purpose college server can keep up
with worldwide web usage if the resource is promoted and becomes
popular. The people who ARE keeping up are pouring iron and gold into
it, and getting corporate sponsors.
>George is providing a service to the world...
or was...
> which no one else in their
>right mind would even try to attempt...
Except for IAudit, as you yourself mentioned - and there are a couple of
others which George himself points to... so you're right except in the
technical sense of being dead wrong :-) ...
>, and he's doing a damned good job at it.
He is? For whom? Site's still down.
>The only problem was that his server couldn't keep up. That problem
>has now been remedied. Geo's counter will be back online within the next
>week or two.
Yes, and fins up again a few months later when people add the links back
in. Wait and see! (And in the meantime, as you admit, it's no better
than IAudit's fluff numbers.)
Mike Meyer
> I would suggest (although I can't prove it) that there is at least one
> other factor that biases this statistic towards Netscape and other
> "kewl" browsers: Many of the sites that use iAudit to gather
> statistics and display a counter in their page also make use of
> Netscapeisms, which in turn attract more Netscape users than users of
> other browsers.
Don't forget that extreme NetScapisms tend to drive away other
browsers as well. In particular, if you use NetScape as a validator,
you could well be providing HTML that is unusable in other browsers
for one or more reasons.
<mike
infowerk
guys with their blackbird,scribble and HotJava as well has WorldView
browsers. So many standards, so little content. ;)
: How does iAudit track hits from non-graphical users, such as those with
: Lynx or with auto-load images off? And how does it track AOL & Prodigy
: readers, where the iAudit image is probably cached for life?
: www.survey.net, which tracks non-graphical users as well as those from
: AOL, Prodigy, and Compuserve, shows the big three up at 54 percent.
: Interesting discrepancy.
: _______________________________________________________________________
Larry W. Virden:
I know that _I_ avoid all netscape specific sites like the plague - since
I can't read the majority of sites which use Netscape tables, it isn't
worth my time. And I use Lynx Mosaic and HotJava almost exclusively due
to a long running Netscape incompatibility with my personal environment.
--
:s Larry W. Virden INET: larry....@cas.org
:s My new WWW home is coming...
:s Unless explicitly stated to the contrary, nothing in this posting should
:s be construed as representing my employer's opinions.
Frank McNeil
: I know that _I_ avoid all netscape specific sites like the plague - since
: I can't read the majority of sites which use Netscape tables, it isn't
: worth my time. And I use Lynx Mosaic and HotJava almost exclusively due
: to a long running Netscape incompatibility with my personal environment.
: --
And what environment is that? Mosaic might also be able to read Tables?
I use tables that are browsable with Mosaic Comet fb and Netscape
in ms-windows?
frank
ftme...@best.com
Mike Batchelor
>Larry W. Virden: (lw...@cas.org) wrote:
>: I know that _I_ avoid all netscape specific sites like the plague - since
>: I can't read the majority of sites which use Netscape tables, it isn't
>: worth my time. And I use Lynx Mosaic and HotJava almost exclusively due
>: to a long running Netscape incompatibility with my personal environment.
>: --
>And what environment is that? Mosaic might also be able to read Tables?
If he's running HotJava now, there's only one environment he could be
running in. :)
>I use tables that are browsable with Mosaic Comet fb and Netscape
>in ms-windows?
>frank
>ftme...@best.com
--
%%%%%% mik...@clark.net %%%%%% http://www.clark.net/pub/mikebat/ %%%%%%
Mark Kolesar
: I know that _I_ avoid all netscape specific sites like the plague - since
: I can't read the majority of sites which use Netscape tables, it isn't
: worth my time. And I use Lynx Mosaic and HotJava almost exclusively due
: to a long running Netscape incompatibility with my personal environment.
Netscape tables? Tables are part of the HTML3 spec and are supported on
the latest NCSA browser for MS-Windows, and I suspect their other platform
implementations also.
There are still plenty of proprietary components to Netscape, but Tables
are not one of them.
---------------------------------------
Mark A. Kolesar mkol...@ee.net
Kick it!
David Harvey-George
mar...@leland.Stanford.EDU says...
>What is really funny is that the statistic itself has comments in it
>that explain why it is inaccurate:
>
>7 PRODIGY-WB 12647 1.2% Low due to page cache.
>12 aolbrowser 3794 0.4% Low due to page cache.
>23 Lynx 842 0.1% Low due to GIF not
Duh, why didn't the guy just include .html files? I notice that on my
site 50% of the accesses don't download the first graphic... presuably
this means 50% of people who access my site run with graphics turned off.
I just count the html access to compensate.
Another factor which may screw things, Netscape users may be too stupid
to use a proxy...
David
David Harvey-George
>
>
>If he's running HotJava now, there's only one environment he could be
>running in. :)
Windows NT? or do you mean Slowlaris? Hmmmm I count two environment
there.
David
Mike Batchelor
>Larry W. Virden: (lw...@cas.org) wrote:
>: I know that _I_ avoid all netscape specific sites like the plague - since
>: I can't read the majority of sites which use Netscape tables, it isn't
>: worth my time. And I use Lynx Mosaic and HotJava almost exclusively due
>: to a long running Netscape incompatibility with my personal environment.
>Netscape tables? Tables are part of the HTML3 spec and are supported on
Netscape's table implementation is not the HTML v3 implementation, and is
in fact, incompatible with HTML v3 tables.
>the latest NCSA browser for MS-Windows, and I suspect their other platform
>implementations also.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
>There are still plenty of proprietary components to Netscape, but Tables
>are not one of them.
Yes they are.
Mike Batchelor
Last I checked, HotJava for NT wasn't available yet.
John Pike
>www.survey.net, which tracks non-graphical users as well as those from
>AOL, Prodigy, and Compuserve, shows the big three up at 54 percent.
I took a look at http://www.survey.net/ and didn't immediately see where
these results were reported.
--
Director, Space Policy & Cyberstrategy Projects
http://www.fas.org/pub/gen/fas/
Rob Hartill
>Another factor which may screw things, Netscape users may be too stupid
>to use a proxy...
Are you calling me stupid ?
I'm not stupid.. I'm lazy. Please get it right.
rob
--
http://nqcd.lanl.gov/~hartill/
Christof Schmidbauer
>In <DCqD9...@threewiz.demon.co.uk> David Harvey-George
<da...@threewiz.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>In article <3vonct$c...@clark.net>, mik...@clark.net says...
>>>If he's running HotJava now, there's only one environment he could be
>>>running in. :)
>
>>Windows NT? or do you mean Slowlaris? Hmmmm I count two environment
>>there.
>
>Last I checked, HotJava for NT wasn't available yet.
This must be long ago. When my memory serves me well the alpha release for Win
NT Intel is availbal for around a month.
Christof Schmidbauer jw...@wiwi.uni-frankfurt.d400.de
http://www.wiwi.uni-frankfurt.de/AG/JWGI/
Christof Schmidbauer
Rob Hartill <har...@lanl.gov> wrote:
>David Harvey-George <da...@threewiz.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Another factor which may screw things, Netscape users may be too stupid
>>to use a proxy...
>
>Are you calling me stupid ?
>
>I'm not stupid.. I'm lazy. Please get it right.
Please explain. Is it to much to insert those three or four lines in the
preferences menue to configure the proxy? Or do you enjoy waiting for
HTML-pages which where already retrieved by other users on your site? Or is
this just somekind of wicked humor I don´t understand? ;-)
--Christof
peter_dobson
Johnson) writes:
>I am looking for Web server software to integrate into MS-Access
>as the back end data source. I know I have seen postings here
>on this topic but I never paid attention to them.
>
>As usually happens we need to know yesterday if we can do it?
>
>Can anybody help?
>
Try:
Seems OK.
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> . . |
> ... ... | Tony Johnson Email:
rp2...@email.sps.mot.com
> ..... ..... | Senior Software Engineer Voice: (602) 244-6264
> .. ... .. | Business Information Services Pager: (602) 219-9372
>. . . | Semiconductor Products Sector Fax : (602) 244-5898
> | 5005 E McDowell Road E108 CServ: 72163, 702
> Motorola-SPS | Phoenix, AZ 85008
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
Paul Kaliciak
>>Last I checked, HotJava for NT wasn't available yet.
Gee, I downloaded it 3 weeks ago. At least it *said* it was for NT.
:- )
Larry W. Virden:
you need to run back and check more often - an Alpha version of
Windows NT HotJava has been around a few weeks.
And Solaris isn't so slow - it all depends on how wimpy of a machine
you try to run it on ;-)
Larry W. Virden:
In article <3vo3ib$e...@news1.best.com>,
Frank McNeil <ftme...@shell1.best.com> wrote:
:Larry W. Virden: (lw...@cas.org) wrote:
:
:: I know that _I_ avoid all netscape specific sites like the plague - since
:: I can't read the majority of sites which use Netscape tables, it isn't
:: worth my time. And I use Lynx Mosaic and HotJava almost exclusively due
:: to a long running Netscape incompatibility with my personal environment.
:And what environment is that? Mosaic might also be able to read Tables?
:I use tables that are browsable with Mosaic Comet fb and Netscape
:in ms-windows?
I am using SunOS 4 and 5, as well as Mosaic 2.6 and 2.7. There are
a small number of 'netscape-centric' sites whose tables are usable
by Mosaic. But the majority are not - any time that a site trys
for instance to put links in a table entry Mosaic just ignores
the text and links, making the page appear to be a little empty
grid...
Maurizio Codogno
Larry W. Virden: <lvi...@cas.org> wrote:
>I am using SunOS 4 and 5, as well as Mosaic 2.6 and 2.7. There are
>a small number of 'netscape-centric' sites whose tables are usable
>by Mosaic. But the majority are not - any time that a site trys
>for instance to put links in a table entry Mosaic just ignores
>the text and links, making the page appear to be a little empty
>grid...
More generally it is not possible to have anchors in tables, even pictures.
Isn't it a fault in Mosaic's implementation? AFAIK, pictures in tables are
allowed, Arena test pages has them.
.mau.
James HG Redekop
Table elements (TD, TH) can contain %body.content type stuff, which means
that anything that can go in <BODY></BODY> can go in a <TD> or a <TH>,
including headers, divistions, anchors, images, figures, math, paragraphs,
lists, and other tables...
Any browser that doesn't allow all of these inside a table element isn't
implementing HTML 3.0 tables properly.
Of course, any browser that doesn't implement <TABLE ALIGN=CENTER> or
<TABLE COLSPEC="L100 C50 R75"> or the like isn't doing it right either, so
that counts Netscape out as well...
--
James H.G. Redekop Free confidential counselling for
tz...@publix.empath.on.ca SURVIVORS OF DECONSTRUCTION
tz...@csd.uwo.ca Call 1-800-MEANING
http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~tzoq/ Ap(point)ments may be continually postponed.
Russell Taylor
: I am using SunOS 4 and 5, as well as Mosaic 2.6 and 2.7. There are
: a small number of 'netscape-centric' sites whose tables are usable
: by Mosaic. But the majority are not - any time that a site trys
: for instance to put links in a table entry Mosaic just ignores
: the text and links, making the page appear to be a little empty
: grid...
Isn't that NCSA's fault? I thought tables were allowed to include
<A> elements according the the HTML 3.0 specs.
--
Russ Taylor
<A HREF="http://www.pacinfo.com">PacInfo</A>
Systems Administrator and Consultant, PacInfo
"It Stinks." -- Jay Sherman, noted Critic
Gordon K. Werner
version of their WWW browser which should be avilable in the near future.
Gordon
--
Gordon Karel Werner
Jacob C Kesinger
>In <DCqD9...@threewiz.demon.co.uk> David Harvey-George <da...@threewiz.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>In article <3vonct$c...@clark.net>, mik...@clark.net says...
>>>
>>>
>>>If he's running HotJava now, there's only one environment he could be
>>>running in. :)
>>Windows NT? or do you mean Slowlaris? Hmmmm I count two environment
>>there.
>Last I checked, HotJava for NT wasn't available yet.
Nah, alpha2's been out since at least late June.
--Jake "using it just last week" K.
--
Jake Kesinger n914...@cc.wwu.edu
http://rowlf.cc.wwu.edu:8080/~n9146070/ SF, Pratchett, Deverry
"God bless those pagans"
--Homer J. Simpson
Tom Neff
Gordon K. Werner <Fly...@iac.net> wrote:
>AOL has announced that they will support Netscape HTML tags in the new
>version of their WWW browser which should be avilable in the near future.
What they mean is that they will support the ones they knew about and
could reverse engineer at the time. Since Netscape's constant fiddling
around presents a moving target, this is an announcement you can expect
to see more than once.
Leo Bueno
}Another factor which may screw things, Netscape users may be too stupid
}to use a proxy...
Hello, hello, hello. Stupid Netscape user here: What's a proxy?
--
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| E-mail: mailto:leob...@netpoint.net |
| Snail-mail: P.O. Box 440545, Miami, Florida, 33144-0545, USA |
| Home page: http://www.netpoint.net/~leobueno/index.html |
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
Dierk Lucyga
leob...@miles.netpoint.net (Leo Bueno) wrote:
>** David Harvey-George (da...@threewiz.demon.co.uk) ** wrote in comp.infosystems.www.browsers.ms-windows:
>}Another factor which may screw things, Netscape users may be too stupid
>}to use a proxy...
>Hello, hello, hello. Stupid Netscape user here: What's a proxy?
qed :-)
Normally when you click on link this is what will happen (*):
sending request
Your Browser ------------------> remote server
sending response
Remote server -----------------> your browser
When your using a proxy-server this what will happen:
sending request sending request
Your Browser ------------------> proxy ------------------> remote server
sending response sending response
Remote server -----------------> proxy ------------------> your browser
|
v
cache
This means that "response" on "request" is not only send to you but saved
in a cache (normally on disk). When you or someone else who's using the
same proxy-server sends the same "request" "response" comes from the cache,
not from the remote server. This means that:
- You will get the document faster, because proxy is normally a host very
close to you.
- Bandwith is saved because the remote server sends the response only once
and not everytime it is requested
- This will also make the remote server happy. He has to handle fewer
connections.
(*)Techfreaks are kindly requested to stay quiet. The following might not
be an exact detailed description of the proxy/caching mechanism but I have
to explain it to a "Stupid Netscape user" in a foreign language.
--
Dierk....@uni-konstanz.de (PGP 2.6ui available on request)
It is prohibited to Microsoft Network to redistribute this information, in any form,
in whole or in part. (C) Dierk Lucyga 1995. I'm willing to license this Usenet posting
to MSN for $5000,-. Redistribution without permission constitutes an agreement to
these terms. Please send notices of violation to Dierk....@uni-konstanz.de and
Postm...@microsoft.com
(Above posting does not necessarily tally with my employers point of view.)
David Harvey-George
says...
>
>** David Harvey-George (da...@threewiz.demon.co.uk) ** wrote in
comp.infosystems.www.browsers.ms-windows:
>
>}Another factor which may screw things, Netscape users may be too stupid
>}to use a proxy...
>
>Hello, hello, hello. Stupid Netscape user here: What's a proxy?
Oh right, you talking to me? Well it's a local machine which caches
frequently accessed pages for users. BTW before anyone gets the hump I
didn't say that Netscape users WERE, only MAY.
David
Tony Curtis
>> Hello, hello, hello. Stupid Netscape user here: What's a
>> proxy?
David> Oh right, you talking to me? Well it's a local
David> machine which caches frequently accessed pages for
David> users. BTW before anyone gets the hump I didn't say
David> that Netscape users WERE, only MAY.
Hmmm, a proxy server is a server which fetches things
(e.g. HTML documents, ftp indexes, gopher menus, news) on
behalf of clients (normally browsers but you can chain proxy
servers together).
A caching server is one which makes local copies of
documents.
However, most proxy servers also do caching (in my
experience anyway).
tony
Chris Jeske
: I can't read the majority of sites which use Netscape tables, it isn't
: worth my time. And I use Lynx Mosaic and HotJava almost exclusively due
: to a long running Netscape incompatibility with my personal environment.
Yes, nothing pisses me off more than running into a site with a little
note at the bottom saying:
"For optimum viewing pleasure, get the latest Netscape."
If a site does not look good on my browser (Mosaic and Lynx usually), I do
not go back. I have found that the vast majority of these sites are just
bells, whistles, and c00l trix anyway, with little or no concrete information
to convey.
I know of many people around here (University of Alberta) who feel as I do
about these "Netscape optimized" sites. The sad thing about many of these
sites is that it is _VERY_ easy to design a similar page that will look
good on ALL browsers. But the authors are either lazy or they do not know
any better.
Netscape pulled off a good one when it decided to do multiple "hits" when
accessing a page as compared to other browsers. The real percentage of
people using netscape for access is less than 50% and decreasing in my
opinion. (Of course, I do not have any stats to back this up. I have formed
this opinion based on the stats of others, the postings in this group, and
the type of pages where the accesses where counted...) But many people
equate a "hit" with an access, which is just not the same thing.
-Chris Jeske
Chris Jeske
: Larry W. Virden: (lw...@cas.org) wrote:
: : I know that _I_ avoid all netscape specific sites like the plague - since
: : I can't read the majority of sites which use Netscape tables, it isn't
: : worth my time. And I use Lynx Mosaic and HotJava almost exclusively due
: : to a long running Netscape incompatibility with my personal environment.
: : --
: And what environment is that? Mosaic might also be able to read Tables?
: I use tables that are browsable with Mosaic Comet fb and Netscape
: in ms-windows?
Mosaic _is_ able to read tables (Comet fb). However, Netscape has
implemented a different way of defining tables, which, when viewed
with Mosaic, just appears blank.
For some reason, Netscape supports two types of tables, the standard kind
and the Netscape kind. However, when a new HTML writer looks at the Netscape
site for info on tables, he/she is pointed to the Netscapized tables. So
the new author goes away thinking this is the proper way to do tables, when
only netscape browsers are able to view them.
There is a valid way of doing tables which more browsers support (more, not
all). Then there is the netscape way, which does not show up on other
browsers.
-Chris Jeske
Chris Jeske
: : I am using SunOS 4 and 5, as well as Mosaic 2.6 and 2.7. There are
: : a small number of 'netscape-centric' sites whose tables are usable
: : by Mosaic. But the majority are not - any time that a site trys
: : for instance to put links in a table entry Mosaic just ignores
: : the text and links, making the page appear to be a little empty
: : grid...
: Isn't that NCSA's fault? I thought tables were allowed to include
: <A> elements according the the HTML 3.0 specs.
I have had no problems with links or graphics in tables using
NCSA Mosaic Final Beta for MS Windows. What this browser does have
a problem with is those stoopid Netscape tables.
-Chris Jeske
Luke Mitchell Seemann
>: I can't read the majority of sites which use Netscape tables, it isn't
>: worth my time. And I use Lynx Mosaic and HotJava almost exclusively due
>: to a long running Netscape incompatibility with my personal environment.
>
>note at the bottom saying:
> "For optimum viewing pleasure, get the latest Netscape."
>
>If a site does not look good on my browser (Mosaic and Lynx usually), I do
>not go back. I have found that the vast majority of these sites are just
>bells, whistles, and c00l trix anyway, with little or no concrete information
>to convey.
>
I admit: I haven't used many other broswers since last fall, when I found
Netscape to be far superior in performance, presentation, and ubiquity. Have
the others got anything Netscape lacks?
As tired as we all are of "Netscape-enhanced", I'm also tired
of all the elitists posting in the vein of, "You used a <center> and
a <font> -- what are you? a 9-year old?"
Agreed: pages should be presentable on as many platforms and browsers
as possible, but if used correctly, the "bells and whistles" of Netscape
augment
the concrete inormation. If used correctly. The medium, after all, _is_ the
message. Tha'ts why we're on the web in the first place.
Proprietary shmoprietary...NHTML just looks better.
oen to flames,
Luke
J. Kivi Shapiro
Luke Mitchell Seemann <luke...@oregon.uoregon.edu> wrote:
>Proprietary shmoprietary...NHTML just looks better.
And, depending on the browser, sometimes not even that.
- Kivi
--
ksha...@julian.uwo.ca or ki...@pobox.com (Kivi Shapiro)
All original material in this message is in the public domain.
lb. for lb. the most dangerous mammal.
>Luke Mitchell Seemann (luke...@oregon.uoregon.edu) wrote:
>> So, uh, um, why don't you just, you know, use Netscape?
>> The medium, after all, _is_ the message. Tha'ts why we're on the web
>> in the first place.
>For you, perhaps. For me, the _message_ is the message. The
>blinking, multifont headers and backgrounds are rarely anything but
>waste.
It just depends on why your using it really. If your cruising for information
the glitz is just a waste. If your just out looking around then why not have
the bells and wistles. I prefer different brousers for different needs.
Mike
Alton Pouncey
: je...@gpu3.srv.ualberta.ca (Chris Jeske) wrote:
: >There is a valid way of doing tables which more browsers support (more, not
: >all). Then there is the netscape way, which does not show up on other
: >browsers.
: Being one who has started setting up a web site with only Netscape users in mind I
: haven't really cared much about the other 25% or so of the users using other
: browsers. At first...
: Now that I have taken a look at our site with Lynx and Mosaic I can see how
: necessary it is to change a few things. Can you point me to a reference that will
: show me how to create tables that Mosaic, Netscape, etc. can view?
: Also, is there any other way of "centering" a image non-Netscape fashion without
: using a transparent gif to push it over.
<p><img align="center" src="foo.bar"></p> will work fine on most browsers
I believe. I think there are three diffrent ways to do it actually, but
this is the only way I can remember.
: Brian Monkman
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"That's why, prior to his presidency, he was the hawk of hawks and now
he's the wimp of wimps." - David Newman on Bill Clinton possibly having to
explain to a mother why her son died in Bosnia.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Need an HTML author? Finger me for my resume. alt...@netcom.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alton Pouncey
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
Alton Pouncey (alt...@netcom.com) wrote:
: Brian Monkman (bmonkman) wrote:
: : Also, is there any other way of "centering" a image non-Netscape fashion
: : without using a transparent gif to push it over.
: <p><img align="center" src="foo.bar"></p> will work fine on most browsers
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Sorry, my mistake. That should be <p align="center"><img src="foo.bar"></p>
Maybe I should get some sleep - it's too early.
David Harvey-George
says...
>
>
>Hmmm, a proxy server is a server which fetches things
>(e.g. HTML documents, ftp indexes, gopher menus, news) on
>behalf of clients (normally browsers but you can chain proxy
>servers together).
>
>A caching server is one which makes local copies of
>documents.
A caching server and a proxy server are one and the same thing, and the
original discussion was around using proxies for caching, not for service
forwarding.
David
Brian Monkman
>There is a valid way of doing tables which more browsers support (more, not
>all). Then there is the netscape way, which does not show up on other
>browsers.
Being one who has started setting up a web site with only Netscape users in mind I
haven't really cared much about the other 25% or so of the users using other
browsers. At first...
Now that I have taken a look at our site with Lynx and Mosaic I can see how
necessary it is to change a few things. Can you point me to a reference that will
show me how to create tables that Mosaic, Netscape, etc. can view?
Also, is there any other way of "centering" a image non-Netscape fashion without
using a transparent gif to push it over.
Brian Monkman
Tom La Porte
>
> Now that I have taken a look at our site with Lynx and Mosaic I can see how
> necessary it is to change a few things. Can you point me to a reference
> that will show me how to create tables that Mosaic, Netscape, etc.
> can view?
The following contains Dave Raggett's Internet Draft regarding tables:
<URL:http://www.w3.org/hypertext/WWW/MarkUp/html3-tables/tables.txt>
See also Dan Connolly's "Toward a Graceful Deployment of Tables in HTML"
<URL:http://www.w3.org/hypertext/WWW/MarkUp/table-deployment.html>
A hypertext version of the current Internet draft for HTML 3.0 is
also available at:
<URL:http://www.w3.org/hypertext/WWW/MarkUp/html3/CoverPage.html>
> Also, is there any other way of "centering" a image non-Netscape
> fashion without using a transparent gif to push it over.
<p align=center><img src = "foo.gif"></p>
--
"Laugh and the world laughs with you; Thomas A. La Porte
snore and you sleep alone." tlap...@umich.edu
Brandi Weed
>Mosaic _is_ able to read tables (Comet fb). However, Netscape has
>implemented a different way of defining tables, which, when viewed
>with Mosaic, just appears blank.
Is this true across all platforms? I was using a table to layout a fill-in
form and viewing it with Mosaic 2.0 for Windows was no problem at all.
Or does Mosaic just freak over Netscape-specific table attributes?
--
Brandi Weed
bra...@primenet.com
http://www.primenet.com/~brandi/
Stan Friesen
|>
|> <p><img align="center" src="foo.bar"></p> will work fine on most browsers
|> this is the only way I can remember.
|>
line. The align=center needs to be in thr *paragraph* (<P>) markup.
--
s...@elsegundoca.attgis.com sar...@netcom.com
The peace of God be with you.
Stan Friesen
|> Now that I have taken a look at our site with Lynx and Mosaic I can see how
|>necessary it is to change a few things. Can you point me to a reference that will
|> show me how to create tables that Mosaic, Netscape, etc. can view?
Use only the minimal table tags: <TABLE>, <TR>, <TH>, and <TD>, and
limit the markup you place inside the table cells. (Mosaic for X still
has a nasty bug that prevents it from rendering markup inside a table cell).
Do NOT nest tables, very few browsers handle this yet.
|>
|> Also, is there any other way of "centering" a image non-Netscape fashion without
|> using a transparent gif to push it over.
<P align=center><IMG src="image"></P>
At least this is the most portable way.
Chris Jeske
: >Yes, nothing pisses me off more than running into a site with a little
: >note at the bottom saying:
: > "For optimum viewing pleasure, get the latest Netscape."
: >
: >If a site does not look good on my browser (Mosaic and Lynx usually), I do
: >not go back. I have found that the vast majority of these sites are just
: >bells, whistles, and c00l trix anyway, with little or no concrete information
: >to convey.
: So, uh, um, why don't you just, you know, use Netscape?
: I admit: I haven't used many other broswers since last fall, when I found
: Netscape to be far superior in performance, presentation, and ubiquity. Have
: the others got anything Netscape lacks?
I have found the new Mosaic Comet final-beta for Windows to be far superior
to any other browsers, even Netscape. Mosaic usually takes about 3/4 the
time to load a page, and is able to continue operating in the background
as well, while Netscape just pauses...
: As tired as we all are of "Netscape-enhanced", I'm also tired
: of all the elitists posting in the vein of, "You used a <center> and
: a <font> -- what are you? a 9-year old?"
Why use <center> and <font> when there is a proper way to do things?
: Agreed: pages should be presentable on as many platforms and browsers
: as possible, but if used correctly, the "bells and whistles" of Netscape
: augment
: the concrete inormation. If used correctly. The medium, after all, _is_ the
: message. Tha'ts why we're on the web in the first place.
Yes, they can be used to enhance the content. But most of the sites I run
across are trying to cover up for lack of content with these bells and
whistles.
: Proprietary shmoprietary...NHTML just looks better.
I disagree. I find many of the Goatscape pages out there extremely annoying.
-Chris Jeske
Paul-Joseph de Werk
>Larry W. Virden: (lw...@cas.org) wrote:
>: I know that _I_ avoid all netscape specific sites like the plague - since
>: I can't read the majority of sites which use Netscape tables, it isn't
>: worth my time. And I use Lynx Mosaic and HotJava almost exclusively due
>: to a long running Netscape incompatibility with my personal environment.
>
>note at the bottom saying:
> "For optimum viewing pleasure, get the latest Netscape."
>
>If a site does not look good on my browser (Mosaic and Lynx usually), I do
>not go back. I have found that the vast majority of these sites are just
>bells, whistles, and c00l trix anyway, with little or no concrete information
>to convey.
Will you do the same to sites designed to the HTML 3.0 specs (with tables)?
My pages are designed to Netscape but I am in the process of redesigning
them to HTML 3.0 specs and using the HAL HTML Validating Service to check
if they conform.
>I know of many people around here (University of Alberta) who feel as I do
>about these "Netscape optimized" sites. The sad thing about many of these
>sites is that it is _VERY_ easy to design a similar page that will look
>good on ALL browsers. But the authors are either lazy or they do not know
>any better.
Similar yes. But that give the same effect with resorting to GIFs and JPEGs
not likely. Also, using the graphics method leaves out text based browsers
also. You can never satisfy everyone, but you can satisfy the majority
by conforming to the specs.
>Netscape pulled off a good one when it decided to do multiple "hits" when
>accessing a page as compared to other browsers. The real percentage of
>people using netscape for access is less than 50% and decreasing in my
>opinion. (Of course, I do not have any stats to back this up. I have formed
>this opinion based on the stats of others, the postings in this group, and
>the type of pages where the accesses where counted...) But many people
>equate a "hit" with an access, which is just not the same thing.
What do you mean multiple hits? I've checked the access log on my personal
server with a *huge* page and very graphics intensive (made sure I had a
high load going too) It only recorded one hit for that access. What you
also don't realize that it is probably much higher in the number of actual
browsers accessing sites (not just Netscape) due to proxy services. Here at
HP we go through a proxy web server to get out int the inet. Thus the site
being accessed records only *one* site at HP accessing even though we
have many hundreds of Netscape browsers going through the proxy.
--
\ /
)) (( Paul-Joseph "Dragon" de Werk
(( )) Software Engineer/QA
\\^^// Non-HP Personnel
{o\/o} pa...@hpfriend.rose.hp.com
\)(/
(@@)
/ vv \
Email auto replies: (for PGP public key & fingerprint, etc.)
Subject: DragonBot
Body:
help - for help
list - for list of available files
Paul-Joseph de Werk
>: : a small number of 'netscape-centric' sites whose tables are usable
>: : by Mosaic. But the majority are not - any time that a site trys
>: : for instance to put links in a table entry Mosaic just ignores
>: : the text and links, making the page appear to be a little empty
>: : grid...
>
>: Isn't that NCSA's fault? I thought tables were allowed to include
>: <A> elements according the the HTML 3.0 specs.
>
>I have had no problems with links or graphics in tables using
>NCSA Mosaic Final Beta for MS Windows. What this browser does have
>a problem with is those stoopid Netscape tables.
The most likely problem here is the author using <TABLE BORDER> instead of
<TABLE BORDER="1">
Larry W. Virden:
you forgot a reason:
o for some users, Netscape browser crashes every 10 minutes while hotjava, mosaic, and lynx
seldom crash.
--
:s Larry W. Virden INET: larry....@cas.org
:s My new WWW home is coming...
:s Unless explicitly stated to the contrary, nothing in this posting should
:s be construed as representing my employer's opinions.
Joe Buck
>Mosaic _is_ able to read tables (Comet fb). However, Netscape has
>implemented a different way of defining tables, which, when viewed
>with Mosaic, just appears blank.
While Netscape has made some extensions and nonstandard stuff, Mosaic's
implementation is way deficient: it doesn't support any markup at all
inside tables (no pictures inside tables, no hypertext links, etc) --
it shows these as blank.
>For some reason, Netscape supports two types of tables, the standard kind
>and the Netscape kind. However, when a new HTML writer looks at the Netscape
>site for info on tables, he/she is pointed to the Netscapized tables. So
>the new author goes away thinking this is the proper way to do tables, when
>only netscape browsers are able to view them.
Then point them to the official description on www.w3.org. You'll find
that Mosaic displays completely valid tables as blank, and Netscape does
a decent job of displaying most features (Netscape doesn't implement some
features, though).
--
-- Joe Buck <jb...@synopsys.com> (not speaking for Synopsys, Inc)
Anagrams for "information superhighway": Enormous hairy pig with fan
A rough whimper of insanity
Marcus Edward Hennecke
Joe Buck <jb...@synopsys.com> wrote:
>je...@gpu3.srv.ualberta.ca (Chris Jeske) writes:
>>Mosaic _is_ able to read tables (Comet fb). However, Netscape has
>>implemented a different way of defining tables, which, when viewed
>>with Mosaic, just appears blank.
>
>While Netscape has made some extensions and nonstandard stuff, Mosaic's
>implementation is way deficient: it doesn't support any markup at all
>inside tables (no pictures inside tables, no hypertext links, etc) --
>it shows these as blank.
This error is made so many times on this and other newsgroups: There
are three flavors of Mosaic, Mac, Windows and X-Windows, and they
differ significantly. Joe appears to be refering to X-Mosaic, which in
fact does not display any marked up text inside tables, whereas Chris
is clearly refering to Mosaic Comet, final beta, which runs under
Windows and which has a very good table implementation.
--
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>
Snowhare
Nothing above this line is part of the signed message.
In article <DD3vr...@lcpd2.SanDiegoCA.ATTGIS.COM>,
Stan Friesen <s...@elsegundoca.ncr.com> wrote:
>In article <40bpnt$4...@Owl.nstn.ca>, Brian Monkman <bmonkman> writes:
>|> Now that I have taken a look at our site with Lynx and Mosaic I can see how
>|>necessary it is to change a few things. Can you point me to a reference that will
>|> show me how to create tables that Mosaic, Netscape, etc. can view?
>
>Use only the minimal table tags: <TABLE>, <TR>, <TH>, and <TD>, and
>limit the markup you place inside the table cells. (Mosaic for X still
>has a nasty bug that prevents it from rendering markup inside a table cell).
I wouldn't sweat Mosaic for X too much. It's percentage share is small
- - on the order of 4%. Mosaic period is now under 8% - all versions, all
vendors. I rather expect it to fall to third in the rankings in not
too much longer. Its main user base is now Unix based systems - it has
simply failed to compete on the other platforms. I think it is hanging in
there now mainly from sheer inertia.
There is a lesson in there though for the people writing Netscape
specific pages. Browsers, no matter how popular, can fall from grace
fairly quickly.
Benjamin Franz
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBMCvdHOjpikN3V52xAQHMvQP/d1jjDZTYh9bSwo5hm81SDtYFDYRT+8Ad
kNYsDKN+LMOzi5KXZHuCABbgeAfw3AHTNTYXxAttlsxkLs+ZhuICTQ668p5IEKxv
cCMTB7WS5HeUCFUR4VVp5hWiFRSsk1Zn58zBcllTnpDGuwDf4KR0IDUsg7lJFZvz
wW32/wl5UPQ=
=a8R5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Brett Hawn
sh...@teleport.com (lb. for lb. the most dangerous mammal.) wrote:
>In article <40befp$q...@newsreader.wustl.edu> a...@hubert.wustl.edu (Alan
Shutko) writes:
>>> So, uh, um, why don't you just, you know, use Netscape?
>>> The medium, after all, _is_ the message. Tha'ts why we're on the web
>>> in the first place.
>
>>blinking, multifont headers and backgrounds are rarely anything but
>>waste.
>
>It just depends on why your using it really. If your cruising for
information
>the glitz is just a waste. If your just out looking around then why not
have
>the bells and wistles. I prefer different brousers for different needs.
>
> Mike
>
>
We have a saying where I work that I think fits here...
'If you don't like our prices you have the right to go somewhere else'
in this case...
'If you don't like my home page nor my HTML you needn't return'
get serious folks.. a good 50%+ of the websurfers are ppl who just bounce
from page to page checking out whatever tickles their fancy. This means
that all those 'netscapish toys' are interesting to them otherwise it
wouldn't have the following it does. If you want to stick with the stodgy,
here is my information, now read it and leave, style then feel free to do
so, but if you want people to ENJOY what they're reading the maybe you
should think about your presentation a little more.
A little eye-candy goes a Loooong way in keeping a person hanging about, a
page with straight text tends to wear on ones nerves just as a droning
proffesor does.
Brett
http://www.best.com/~piraeus
nothing of interest
but it amuses me.
Mike Batchelor
>je...@gpu3.srv.ualberta.ca (Chris Jeske) wrote:
>>Russell Taylor (rta...@pacinfo.com) wrote:
>>: Larry W. Virden: (lw...@cas.org) wrote:
>>
>>: : I am using SunOS 4 and 5, as well as Mosaic 2.6 and 2.7. There are
>>: : a small number of 'netscape-centric' sites whose tables are usable
>>: : by Mosaic. But the majority are not - any time that a site trys
>>: : for instance to put links in a table entry Mosaic just ignores
>>: : the text and links, making the page appear to be a little empty
>>: : grid...
>>
>>: Isn't that NCSA's fault? I thought tables were allowed to include
>>: <A> elements according the the HTML 3.0 specs.
>>
>>I have had no problems with links or graphics in tables using
>>NCSA Mosaic Final Beta for MS Windows. What this browser does have
>>a problem with is those stoopid Netscape tables.
>The most likely problem here is the author using <TABLE BORDER> instead of
><TABLE BORDER="1">
Ummmm, <table border> is valid HTML v3. <table border="1"> is Netscape
HTML. Mosaic for X is the one that doesn't handle markup inside tables
yet, with or without the border attribute. I might also add that this
border attribute discrepancy is one reason why Netscape tables are
incompatible with HTML v3 tables. Arena renders <table border="1"> with
no border, since it's not a valid attribute. Ignoring the invalid
attribute implies a table with no border, the opposite of what is
intended.
--
%%%%%% mik...@clark.net %%%%%% http://www.clark.net/pub/mikebat/ %%%%%%
Tom Neff
Brett Hawn <pir...@draconia.com> wrote:
>We have a saying where I work that I think fits here...
>
>'If you don't like our prices you have the right to go somewhere else'
>
>in this case...
>
>'If you don't like my home page nor my HTML you needn't return'
That may fit for surfers, but it doesn't need saying. What exactly was
the alternative -- that someone was going to publish a page saying "You
HAVE to come back even if you don't like it"??
>get serious folks.. a good 50%+ of the websurfers are ppl who just bounce
>from page to page checking out whatever tickles their fancy. This means
>that all those 'netscapish toys' are interesting to them otherwise it
>wouldn't have the following it does.
So what - surely 50% or more of all page publishers don't read these
newsgroups either. What you're saying probably sounds sensible to you,
but there's a matter of context here. These newsgroups exist to help
Web authors learn their craft. We *come here* to discuss these issues,
otherwise we'd be out back grilling burgers and running the Weed Wacker
like our smarter neighbors.
Therefore the topic remains. *AUTHORS* need to realize that the way to
reach the most people most effectively is to eschew reliance on
proprietary special effects and bugs du semaine. If some authors have
no particular need to share useful information but just want to put on
shows for a few visitors, then Godspeed them on their journey, but don't
presume that this applies to the majority of readers (let alone posters)
here. In real life, there are plenty of people who DO have information
they'd like to share, have heard about the Web, and have no idea what
the difference is between Netscape-only markups and universal Web work
is. (This even includes some of the people who are putting up pages that
say "For best results use Netscape to view this page!" when it contains,
say, a mailto: URL, or because they saw someone else say this and
decided to copy the slogan on general principles.)
>A little eye-candy goes a Loooong way in keeping a person hanging about, a
>page with straight text tends to wear on ones nerves just as a droning
>proffesor does.
If you think the only alternatives are text-only or Netscape silliness,
then you are one of the learners these groups are here for.
--
Tom Neff :: tn...@panix.com :: <URL:http://www.panix.com/~tneff/>
Martian
++In <40dl7r$f...@hpchase.rose.hp.com> Paul-Joseph de Werk <pa...@hpfriend.rose.hp.com> writes:
++>The most likely problem here is the author using <TABLE BORDER> instead of
++><TABLE BORDER="1">
++Ummmm, <table border> is valid HTML v3. <table border="1"> is Netscape
++HTML. Mosaic for X is the one that doesn't handle markup inside tables
++yet, with or without the border attribute. I might also add that this
++border attribute discrepancy is one reason why Netscape tables are
++incompatible with HTML v3 tables. Arena renders <table border="1"> with
++no border, since it's not a valid attribute. Ignoring the invalid
++attribute implies a table with no border, the opposite of what is
++intended.
That is odd, since <table border = 0> seems to generate a border with
Arena, and not one with Netscape.... Also note that in the newest
table draft, border does take values: 'none', 'frame', 'basic',
'cols', 'rows' and 'all' if I remember correctly. An example also
mentions 'few', but I believe that is the same as 'basic'.
Abigail
Sevo Stille
>Chris Jeske (je...@gpu3.srv.ualberta.ca) mathelode:
>>Mosaic _is_ able to read tables (Comet fb). However, Netscape has
>>implemented a different way of defining tables, which, when viewed
>>with Mosaic, just appears blank.
>
>form and viewing it with Mosaic 2.0 for Windows was no problem at all.
>
>Or does Mosaic just freak over Netscape-specific table attributes?
At least up to V. 2.7b1 for X, Mosaic won't display more complex HTML3
tables (according to the HTML 3.0 draft cells can contain everything
that can legally go inside a <BODY>). While Netscape's table subset
supports this within the limits of Netscapes capabilities, Mosaic simply
refuses to show any cell content beyond a single line of plain text.
Only the latest betas for MAC and Windows do better.
Sevo
--
Sevo Stille se...@inm.de
Visuals & Interfacing Department sevo_...@mausf.robin.de
Institut fuer Neue Medien Tel: ++49 (69) 94196314
Daimlerstrasse 32 Fax: ++49 (69) 94196322
D 60314 Frankfurt a.M.
James A. Wilderotter II
mentioned in this subject line?
Thanks much
You can e-mail your responses to:
ja...@cais.com
Jaws
Russ Allbery
Netscape costs money. (Yes, folks, it really does.) I'm one of those weird
FSF types who believes in free software and doesn't like paying money to
huge software companies for programs.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@www.gvg.tek.com) http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~rra/
Brett Hawn
wrote:
>That may fit for surfers, but it doesn't need saying. What exactly was
>the alternative -- that someone was going to publish a page saying "You
>HAVE to come back even if you don't like it"??
>
even in this case as I've said before.. a little (and I mean just a touch,
glitzy pages are as pathetic as dull pages) goes a long way.
>So what - surely 50% or more of all page publishers don't read these
>newsgroups either. What you're saying probably sounds sensible to you,
>but there's a matter of context here. These newsgroups exist to help
>Web authors learn their craft. We *come here* to discuss these issues,
>otherwise we'd be out back grilling burgers and running the Weed Wacker
>like our smarter neighbors.
>
well.. in the short time that *I*'ve been reading I see alot of folks
talking about designing commerical pages. SO this does apply.. that random
web surfer is just as likely to be your next customer as anyone esle.
Making the page interesting enough to catch their eye is in your best
interest non?
>Therefore the topic remains. *AUTHORS* need to realize that the way to
>reach the most people most effectively is to eschew reliance on
>proprietary special effects and bugs du semaine. If some authors have
>no particular need to share useful information but just want to put on
>shows for a few visitors, then Godspeed them on their journey, but don't
>presume that this applies to the majority of readers (let alone posters)
>here. In real life, there are plenty of people who DO have information
>they'd like to share, have heard about the Web, and have no idea what
>the difference is between Netscape-only markups and universal Web work
>is. (This even includes some of the people who are putting up pages that
>say "For best results use Netscape to view this page!" when it contains,
>say, a mailto: URL, or because they saw someone else say this and
>decided to copy the slogan on general principles.)
>
true enough... but that's just incompentence (sp?) on the authors part,
which can be fixed by their actually bothering to read documentation. The
general technobabble and what have you on this particular group is a major
turnoff for your average person so those people who are likely to make
this mistake are not likely to be here.
>If you think the only alternatives are text-only or Netscape silliness,
>then you are one of the learners these groups are here for.
no.. I just think that mosaic and other browsers have a long long way to
go in catching up to netscape. Granted netscape may use, to quote someone
who's ame I forget right off hand, "illegal tags" but let's face it,
netscape just plain looks better. If I wanted poor looking tables and
bland images I'd write in strict HTML 2.0(3.0). I however, like most other
folks, perfer the options handed to me by netscape. The IETF and WWW
council (I forgot the exact term for this group of ****) are so far behind
netscape (and/or users desires) that they're homo erectus to netscape's
Homo Superior.
Granted some of netscapes tags are poorly implemented when it comes to
working with other browsers (ie. the <Table Border="1"> mess) but in
comparison to what they've given us back I don't see this as a reason for
this exagerated purism that I see. I have no doubt that either Netscape
will fix this in later versions to be more compatible with other browsers
or other browsers will change themselves to become more compatible with
Netscape. Due to this fact I have no fear of using netscape tags, I use
netscape tags and say the hell with the standards committee. If and when
the comittee pulls its colletive head out of its 4th point of contact and
actually does something worthwhile I'll change my pages to fit they're
'standards'.
Rick Jones
How long did it take after the first flush of destop publishing to get
the "gee, this feature is neat, I'll use it!" fluff out of authors'
systems and they got back to meaningful things such as content?
rick jones
Sam Nelson
the users are as much to blame. I remember seeing a PhD thesis (not mine!)
knocked back because `there's too much space between the last character in
parenthesis and the right parenthesis'---a real tear-jerker!
Sam.
-- (Insert bandwidth-wasting disclaimer here)
...Helping to fill in the potholes on the Information Superhighway...
Chuck Foster
>Ummmm, <table border> is valid HTML v3. <table border="1"> is Netscape
You can get around all these by using <table border=20 border>
which Netscape sees 'border=20', and the ones that ignore this tag just
see the 'border', which will generate the border for them. I tested this under
MS-Windows Netscape 1.1N.
I guess this all depends on how the browser examines the tags.
I would have thought it good practice to examine the tokens and
ignore those unrecognised, the same way as markup is handled generally
(so that border=nn is simply seen as border), but I don't think its
specifically defined in the spec as such.
Of course, if Netscape starts looking at the tags in reverse, you'd need
<table border=20 border border=20>, which is beginning to get ridiculous ...
Chesapeake Bay Foundation
: Netscape costs money. (Yes, folks, it really does.) I'm one of those weird
: FSF types who believes in free software and doesn't like paying money to
: huge software companies for programs.
I got my copy for free? Did I do something wrong?
george
Scott Bigham
as spake by pir...@draconia.com (Brett Hawn) :
>In article <40i89m$4...@panix2.panix.com>, tn...@panix.com (Tom Neff)
>wrote:
>>If you think the only alternatives are text-only or Netscape silliness,
>>then you are one of the learners these groups are here for.
>no.. I just think that mosaic and other browsers have a long long way to
>go in catching up to netscape. Granted netscape may use, to quote someone
>who's ame I forget right off hand, "illegal tags" but let's face it,
>netscape just plain looks better. If I wanted poor looking tables and
>bland images I'd write in strict HTML 2.0(3.0).
And if you want snazzy pages with a level of presentation control that
Netscape can't even _dream_ of giving you, you'd use HTML 3.0 with style
sheets.
You don't believe me? Go read
<http://www.w3.org/hypertext/WWW/Style/css/draft.html> and see how much
you're missing. Then go to <http://www.cs.duke.edu/~dsb/colorme.html>
for a practical example.
> I however, like most other
>folks, perfer the options handed to me by netscape.
That's because you haven't seen the options handed to you by the
standard.
> The IETF and WWW
>council (I forgot the exact term for this group of ****) are so far behind
>netscape (and/or users desires) that they're homo erectus to netscape's
>Homo Superior.
Sigh. How many times do we have to debunk this myth? Netscape has done
NOTHING that the standards groups didn't do first:
Fonts? Text colors? Style sheets predate even HTML (see, for
instance, DSSSL for SGML).
Centering? The ALIGN=CENTER tag was in HTML+ (the precursor standard
to HTML 3.0) before Netscape the company even _existed_.
Tables? Again, they were in HTML+ before Netscape even existed.
The ONLY thing Netscape has done is throw together a bunch of quick hack
stopgaps that are deliberately incompatible with existing standard
solutions, and then rush them to market to give the appearance that
they're leading the pack.
>Granted some of netscapes tags are poorly implemented when it comes to
>working with other browsers (ie. the <Table Border="1"> mess) but in
>comparison to what they've given us back I don't see this as a reason for
>this exagerated purism that I see.
What they've given us is a fragmented Web. This is bad for everyone ---
including you.
> I have no doubt that either Netscape
>will fix this in later versions to be more compatible with other browsers
>[...]
Then you are hopelessly naive.
Case in point: Netscape has known for some time now that their <CENTER>
tag is not and will never be in the emerging HTML 3.0 standard (because,
again, the standard has a _better_ way of doing it --- the ALIGN=CENTER
attribute). Has Netscape "fix[ed] this in later versions to be more
compatible"? Quite the opposite --- they've gone onto their Web pages
and _encouraged_ people to use their non-standard tag _instead_ of the
superior standard solution.
_This_ is the reason for the so-called "exagerated purism"(sic) that
you're seeing. Netscape claims to support open standards, and then they
give us this garbage.
> [...] Due to this fact I have no fear of using netscape tags, I use
>netscape tags and say the hell with the standards committee.
After all the standards committee has done for you?
Can Netscape give you a static non-scrolling region at the top of your
page so that your corporate logo or your copyright notice will always be
in view? Nope. You want the <BANNER> element, from the HTML 3.0
standard.
Can Netscape give you footnotes that pop up in a separate subwindow when
the user selects the appropriate link? Nope. You want the <FN>
element, from the HTML 3.0 standard.
Can Netscape give you inline images with full positioning control,
multiple overlays, client-side hotzone mapping (no more reconfiguring
the server to get an imagemap!), and an alternate text with arbitrarily
rich markup? Nope. You want the <FIG> element, from the HTML 3.0
standard.
Can Netscape give you control over paragraph indentation, font leading,
table border colors, list numbering, separate backgrounds and colors
for separate elements? How about _context-sensitive_ control? (ie.
"The first paragraph after an <H1> should be in boldface", or "Render
this in italics if we're on a monochrome display") Nope. You want
style sheets, from --- I bet you can guess --- the HTML 3.0 standard.
> If and when
>the comittee pulls its colletive head out of its 4th point of contact and
>actually does something worthwhile I'll change my pages to fit they're
>'standards'.
Perhaps you should drop by <http://www.w3.org/> and read about all the
worthwhile things the standards committee _has_ been doing. We'll be
waiting here for your retraction.
-sbigham
--
Scott Bigham | The opinions expressed above are
d...@cs.duke.edu | (c) 1995 Hacker Ltd. and cannot be
http://www.cs.duke.edu/~dsb/ | copied or distributed without a
= PGP spoken here = | Darn Good Reason(tm).
Brett Hawn
Russ Allbery <r...@www.gvg.tek.com> wrote:
>In comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html, Luke Mitchell Seemann
><luke...@oregon.uoregon.edu> writes:
>>
>>So, uh, um, why don't you just, you know, use Netscape?
>
weird
>FSF types who believes in free software and doesn't like paying money to
>huge software companies for programs.
>
EH? I've been using netscape for appx 6 months now and I haven't sent them
or anyone else a dime for it. Unless you're talking about the netscape
server you're way off in the wrong direction on this one.
Tom Neff
>Russ Allbery (r...@www.gvg.tek.com) wrote:
>
>: Netscape costs money. (Yes, folks, it really does.) I'm one of those weird
>: FSF types who believes in free software and doesn't like paying money to
>: huge software companies for programs.
>
You did if you failed to read the license terms before clicking
"Accept."
Tom Neff
Brett Hawn <pir...@draconia.com> wrote:
>EH? I've been using netscape for appx 6 months now and I haven't sent them
>or anyone else a dime for it. Unless you're talking about the netscape
>server you're way off in the wrong direction on this one.
Is he indeed.
<URL:http://home.netscape.com/comprod/mirror/win16/LICENSE>
Julie Meloni
>>Netscape costs money. (Yes, folks, it really does.) I'm one of those
>weird
>>FSF types who believes in free software and doesn't like paying money to
>>huge software companies for programs.
>>
>
>or anyone else a dime for it. Unless you're talking about the netscape
>server you're way off in the wrong direction on this one.
>
From Netscape's License Agreement:
GRANT. Netscape Communications Corporation ("Netscape")
hereby grants you a non-exclusive license to use its
accompanying software product ("Software") free of charge if
(a) you are a student, faculty member or staff member of an
educational institution (K-12, junior college or college) or
an employee of a charitable non-profit organization; or (b)
your use of the Software is for the purpose of evaluating
whether to purchase an ongoing license to the Software. The
evaluation period for use by or on behalf of a commercial
entity is limited to 90 days; evaluation use by others is not
subject to this restriction. Government agencies are not
considered charitable non-profit organizations for purposes
of this license agreement. If you do not fit within the
description above, a license fee is due to Netscape and no
license is granted. If you are using the Software free of
charge, you will not be entitled to support or telephone
assistance. If you purchased a license to version 1.0 of the
Software, you may also download the export version of 1.1 as
a free update.
Julie Meloni
dm...@hidwater.com
Hidden Water http://www.hidwater.com/
Robert P. Fries
pir...@draconia.com (Brett Hawn) wrote:
>EH? I've been using netscape for appx 6 months now and I haven't sent them
>or anyone else a dime for it. Unless you're talking about the netscape
>server you're way off in the wrong direction on this one.
I don't think he was wrong at all - just because you haven't paid for it
doesn't mean it's free. Here's the appropriate section of the License you
agreed to when you installed the program:
:(Netscape Navigator is...) free of charge if
:(a) you are a student, faculty member or staff member of an
:educational institution (K-12, junior college or college) or
:an employee of a charitable non-profit organization; or (b)
:your use of the Software is for the purpose of evaluating
:whether to purchase an ongoing license to the Software.
It's taken you 6 months to decide if you like the program or not?
----------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Robert P. Fries Co-Founder - Arachnid World Wide |
| http://www.interaccess.com/users/rpfries/ *Guild member |
`----[ finger: rpf...@cluster.interaccess.com for PGP Public Key ]----'
James HG Redekop
>From the Holy Book of <40m2mr$6...@news1.best.com>
> as spake by pir...@draconia.com (Brett Hawn) :
>>go in catching up to netscape. Granted netscape may use, to quote someone
>>who's ame I forget right off hand, "illegal tags" but let's face it,
>>netscape just plain looks better. If I wanted poor looking tables and
>>bland images I'd write in strict HTML 2.0(3.0).
>
>And if you want snazzy pages with a level of presentation control that
>Netscape can't even _dream_ of giving you, you'd use HTML 3.0 with style
>sheets.
Just so's people can see some of what's what with HTML 3.0, I've put together
a little page of GIFs of pages that use HTML 3.0, so folks can see just how
far ahead of Netscape it really is.
It's at "http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~tzoq/style.html", and includes some GIFs of
HTML 3 pages from around the Web.
Have a look. Then, see if you can duplicate the pages using Netscape.
--
James H.G. Redekop Free confidential counselling for
tz...@publix.empath.on.ca SURVIVORS OF DECONSTRUCTION
tz...@csd.uwo.ca Call 1-800-MEANING
http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~tzoq/ Ap(point)ments may be continually postponed.
James HG Redekop
> In article <40nt92$2...@falcon.ccs.uwo.ca> you write:
> > It's at "http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~tzoq/style.html", and includes some GIFs of
> > HTML 3 pages from around the Web.
>
> I get permission failures on all the pictures. Do you need to do some
> chmod'ing?
Oog, I *did* chmod them... I guess I musta messed that up while putting 'em
in place.
Try now.
Russell Taylor
: In comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html, Luke Mitchell Seemann
: <luke...@oregon.uoregon.edu> writes:
: >
: >So, uh, um, why don't you just, you know, use Netscape?
: Netscape costs money. (Yes, folks, it really does.) I'm one of those weird
: FSF types who believes in free software and doesn't like paying money to
: huge software companies for programs.
Which is an immature attitude typical of people who think writing software
isn't "work". God forbid someone get compensated for their labors.
--
Russ Taylor
<A HREF="http://www.pacinfo.com">PacInfo</A>
Systems Administrator and Consultant, PacInfo
"It Stinks." -- Jay Sherman, noted Critic
Mario Klebsch DG1AM
>well.. in the short time that *I*'ve been reading I see alot of folks
>talking about designing commerical pages. SO this does apply.. that random
>web surfer is just as likely to be your next customer as anyone esle.
>Making the page interesting enough to catch their eye is in your best
>interest non?
Such a page of a company could be taken as a sign, the company is
ignoring network standards. Too many compaies are ignoring standards,
and lots of people have problems with these product. So a Web page
could be just another piece in the moaic.
73, Mario
--
Mario Klebsch, DG1AM, M.Kl...@tu-bs.de +49 531 / 391 - 7457
Institut fuer Robotik und Prozessinformatik der TU Braunschweig
Hamburger Strasse 267, 38114 Braunschweig, Germany
Tom Neff
Brett Hawn <pir...@draconia.com> wrote:
>In article <40i89m$4...@panix2.panix.com>, tn...@panix.com (Tom Neff)
>wrote:
>>newsgroups either. What you're saying probably sounds sensible to you,
>>but there's a matter of context here. These newsgroups exist to help
>>Web authors learn their craft. We *come here* to discuss these issues,
>>otherwise we'd be out back grilling burgers and running the Weed Wacker
>>like our smarter neighbors.
>
>talking about designing commerical pages. SO this does apply.. that random
>web surfer is just as likely to be your next customer as anyone esle.
>Making the page interesting enough to catch their eye is in your best
>interest non?
This doesn't appear to address the text quote it follows in any way,
but let's look at it anyway. #1, there actually is not "alot" of folks
here TALKING about designing "commerical pages," although there are a
lot of announcements of already-designed commercial pages, and a lot of
discussion about design emanating from people with zero commercial
interest in it. That's understandable, since most people with an
actual occupational interest in providing Web content have better things
to do than blather with amateurs.
Secondly, *is* the "random Web surfer" really at all likely to be "your
next customer," let alone *just as likely* as anyone else? The answer
depends entirely on what you're selling. If it's something totally
circular like more web space, then maybe yes. If it's something
tangible or real-world like a mortgage or a wedding portfolio or
real-world information, then my estimate is that a "random Web surfer"
is infinitely LESS likely to be a legitimate sales prospect than someone
you select by traditional means. The ideal use of the Web is in
combination with non-Web promotion, so that potential customers who have
or are getting Internet access can visit you and learn as much as
possible.
When they visit, at least at first, you would certainly like to catch
their eye. However, this has nothing to do with Netscapeisms and
nothing to do with graphics overkill. It has everything to do with
imagination and purpose, which, if present, can function perfectly well
in a pure HTML environment.
>>Therefore the topic remains. *AUTHORS* need to realize that the way to
>>reach the most people most effectively is to eschew reliance on
>>proprietary special effects ...
>
>true enough... but that's just incompentence (sp?) on the authors part,
>which can be fixed by their actually bothering to read documentation...
I don't think you even remember what this thread was about. Rather than
reinvent the entire last 6 months' train of thought one-on-one with you,
let me just suggest you get out there are start reading and doing. If
you stick with it and learn how this stuff works, you will either get
into the business and stop posting, or end up browser agnostic like many
of the rest of us.
Frank Peters
> And if you want snazzy pages with a level of presentation control that
> Netscape can't even _dream_ of giving you, you'd use HTML 3.0 with style
> sheets.
Unfortunately, hidden in the desire for snazzy pages is the assumption that
users will actually be able to SEE the snazzyness. What browsers are there out
there that use HTML 3.0 style sheets? Arena is cool but as a demonstration tool
it does the fancy stuff at the expense of traditional features like forms
support (which, don't get me wrong, is perfectly sensible for Arena...but not
what you want in a production use browser). What other browsers for UNIX
support style sheets? Possibly the emacs W3 browser? What about Macs and
PCs?
If you are going to point users to things like style sheets you better be
able to point them to decent browsers they can use to see them on their
platforms. Otherwise their eyes glaze over and they go back to netscapisms.
Tom Neff
James HG Redekop <tz...@csd.uwo.ca> wrote:
>> In article <40nt92$2...@falcon.ccs.uwo.ca> you write:
>> > It's at "http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~tzoq/style.html", and includes some GIFs of
>> > HTML 3 pages from around the Web.
>
Pretty impressive - makes you want to leapfrog Netscape's dead end and
fire up a full fledged HTML3 browser today!
Mike Batchelor
>In article <40h95f$4...@clark.net>, mik...@clark.net says...
>>Ummmm, <table border> is valid HTML v3. <table border="1"> is Netscape
>>HTML.
>You can get around all these by using <table border=20 border>
>which Netscape sees 'border=20', and the ones that ignore this tag just
>see the 'border', which will generate the border for them. I tested this under
>MS-Windows Netscape 1.1N.
>I guess this all depends on how the browser examines the tags.
>I would have thought it good practice to examine the tokens and
>ignore those unrecognised, the same way as markup is handled generally
>(so that border=nn is simply seen as border), but I don't think its
>specifically defined in the spec as such.
The border attribute in HTML v3 tables is a valueless flag. The presense
of the = sign makes it something other than what the spec calls for, even
though the name is the same. Abigail mentioned in another post that the
latest draft proposes border as an attribute with values.
>Of course, if Netscape starts looking at the tags in reverse, you'd need
><table border=20 border border=20>, which is beginning to get ridiculous ...
Beginning to get...? How about "Has gone from ridiculous to
sublime..." It's been ridiculous for some time already. The whole point
of HTML is so we don't have to have documents formatted for this and that
application. Netscape broke that feature of the Web months ago.
James HG Redekop
>> Netscape can't even _dream_ of giving you, you'd use HTML 3.0 with style
>> sheets.
>
>there that use HTML 3.0 style sheets? Arena is cool but as a demonstration
>tool
>it does the fancy stuff at the expense of traditional features like forms
>support
>support style sheets? Possibly the emacs W3 browser? What about Macs and
>PCs?
Arena is out, but is not a complete browser, as you mention.
Emacs supports HTML 3, though I don't personally know how much.
There is UdiWWW for Windows, which is a good browser, though it is still a
beta release, I believe.
Lastly, SUN's HotJava is working towards HTML 3 compliance. Unfortunately,
it only exists for Solaris and Windows NT.
>If you are going to point users to things like style sheets you better be
>able to point them to decent browsers they can use to see them on their
>platforms. Otherwise their eyes glaze over and they go back to netscapisms.
I agree completely. However, if enough people can be convinced that HTML 3
and style sheets can produce the results they want, we can hope that they'll
start asking for those features from their browser authors.
HTML 3 needs one good, solid browser to get things rolling. HotJava may be
the one, if it can get ported to various breeds of UNIX, Mac, and Windows.
For anyone who's curious, there are GIFs of examples of HTML 3 with style
sheets at "http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~tzoq/style.html"
--
James HG Redekop
>In article <Pine.SUN.3.91.950814124632.11876A-100000@mccarthy>,
>James HG Redekop <tz...@csd.uwo.ca>wrote:
>>>In article <40nt92$2...@falcon.ccs.uwo.ca>you write:
>>>>It's at "http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~tzoq/style.html", and includes some GIFs of
>>>>HTML 3 pages from around the Web.
>
>fire up a full fledged HTML3 browser today!
Yes... If there are any browser authors out there who are wondering if they
should do HTML 3 -- have a look at the GIFs... First one to get a good,
solid, UNIX-based HTML3 browser out has my support!
Adding in a handful of Netscapeisms for backward compatibility wouldn't be
too hard.
If it weren't for my doing a Master's thesis & having a job, I'd be working on
one myself, most likely.
Arnon Davidovici
--
--
Arnon Davidovici
16500 Lauder Lane #21201 davi...@cs.tulane.edu
Dallas, TX 75248 214-380-8461
http://www.cs.tulane.edu/www/Davidovici
Marcus Edward Hennecke
Robert P. Fries <rpf...@interaccess.com> wrote:
>In article <40nq71$a...@news1.best.com>,
> pir...@draconia.com (Brett Hawn) wrote:
>>EH? I've been using netscape for appx 6 months now and I haven't sent them
>>or anyone else a dime for it. Unless you're talking about the netscape
>>server you're way off in the wrong direction on this one.
>
>I don't think he was wrong at all - just because you haven't paid for it
>doesn't mean it's free. Here's the appropriate section of the License you
>agreed to when you installed the program:
>
>:(Netscape Navigator is...) free of charge if
>:(a) you are a student, faculty member or staff member of an
>:educational institution (K-12, junior college or college) or
>:an employee of a charitable non-profit organization; or (b)
>:your use of the Software is for the purpose of evaluating
>:whether to purchase an ongoing license to the Software.
>
>It's taken you 6 months to decide if you like the program or not?
But you only have 90 days to evaluate it as it says in the next
sentence that you conveniently omitted:
The evaluation period for use by or on behalf of a commercial entity
is limited to 90 days;
I don't know if draconia.com is a commercial entity or not (the name
would suggest it is). If it is, then Brett migth be a software pirate.
--
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>
Scott Bigham
as spake by tz...@csd.uwo.ca (James HG Redekop) :
> If it weren't for my doing a Master's thesis & having a job, I'd be working on
> [an HTML3 browser] myself, most likely.
You and me both (except in my case it's a PhD thesis). I may yet,
despite myself.
-sbigham
--
Scott Bigham | "This is our path, to fight or die."
d...@cs.duke.edu | "That's what we're paid for, so let's
http://www.cs.duke.edu/~dsb/ | do it with some STYLE!"
= PGP spoken here = | Dr. Who, _Battlefield_
Dr. Ken
>>>netscape server you're way off in the wrong direction on this one.
>>It's taken you 6 months to decide if you like the program or not?
I guess I must be from Pluto (I'll have to check my driver's license) but
it always amazes me that people will continue to use software they
haven't paid for. I was ready to purchase Netscape within a week after I
first started using it, and decided to wait a few more weeks until 1.1N
was released.
People who take Netscape and then don't pay for it when they know full
well they are obligated to will be ruining it for the rest of us. I
always like to test drive my software before making the purchase - it
saves me beau coups of bucks and prevents me from throwing good money at
bad software. I for one appreciate Netscape making Navigator available
to those of us who like to test drive. I hope the cheap bastards don't
ruin this for the rest of us honest folks.
--
Dr. Ken
<b><i>dr...@rain.org</i></b>
http://www.rain.org:80/~drken/
David Efflandt
>In article <40h95f$4...@clark.net>, mik...@clark.net says...
>>Ummmm, <table border> is valid HTML v3. <table border="1"> is Netscape
>>HTML.
>You can get around all these by using <table border=20 border>
>which Netscape sees 'border=20', and the ones that ignore this tag just
>see the 'border', which will generate the border for them. I tested this under
>MS-Windows Netscape 1.1N.
I missed the middle of this discussion. What browser stumbles on
<table border=20>?
<table border> is misinterpretted by Netscape as border=0 instead of
border=true, but Mosaic has no trouble with numbers greater than zero
in which case it displays the border and ignores the number.
So <table border=20> works in both Netscape and Mosaic.
Dave/Elgin, IL USA effl...@xnet.com
http://www.xnet.com/~efflandt/
Frank Peters
> Lastly, SUN's HotJava is working towards HTML 3 compliance. Unfortunately,
> it only exists for Solaris and Windows NT.
HotJava doesn't appear to be as far along on this front as Netscape.
I have the latest HotJava for Solaris release (1.0 Alpha 3) and it
doesn't do tables that Netscape handles (tables from the Arena demo pages
so I know they aren't in any way Netscape specific). And no detectable
style sheet support.
I think that Arena is the best candidate on the UNIX platforms.
Unfortunately most of the sites which I actually use on a regular basis
(as opposed to surfing for fun) use features Arena doesn't support.
But I would bet that these features would be added pretty quickly if
source code were made available.
> >If you are going to point users to things like style sheets you better be
> >able to point them to decent browsers they can use to see them on their
> >platforms. Otherwise their eyes glaze over and they go back to netscapisms.
>
> I agree completely. However, if enough people can be convinced that HTML 3
> and style sheets can produce the results they want, we can hope that they'll
> start asking for those features from their browser authors.
In a void this might work. But faced with the choice of doing things
the Netscape way and doing without while they nag software vendors into
doing things the HTML3 way real users in the real world are going to do
James HG Redekop
|In comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html you write:
|
|>Just so's people can see some of what's what with HTML 3.0, I've put together
|>a little page of GIFs of pages that use HTML 3.0, so folks can see just how
|>far ahead of Netscape it really is.
|
|>HTML 3 pages from around the Web.
|
|
|demo page?
It's done. :)
James H.G. Redekop tz...@csd.uwo.ca
http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~tzoq/ -- My personal home page
http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~tzoq/Residents/ -- RzWeb, The Residents' Website
http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~tzoq/style.html -- Why HTML3 is better than Netscape
James HG Redekop
Frank Peters <f...@Jester.CC.MsState.Edu> wrote:
>According to James HG Redekop <tz...@csd.uwo.ca>:
>> Lastly, SUN's HotJava is working towards HTML 3 compliance. Unfortunately,
>> it only exists for Solaris and Windows NT.
>
>HotJava doesn't appear to be as far along on this front as Netscape.
>I have the latest HotJava for Solaris release (1.0 Alpha 3) and it
>doesn't do tables that Netscape handles (tables from the Arena demo pages
>so I know they aren't in any way Netscape specific). And no detectable
>style sheet support.
>
>I think that Arena is the best candidate on the UNIX platforms.
>Unfortunately most of the sites which I actually use on a regular basis
>(as opposed to surfing for fun) use features Arena doesn't support.
There are no plans to turn Arena into a full-fledge browser, however. It is
only meant as a test-bed for HTML 3.
I don't know what HotJava is like (don't have access to a Solaris machine
yet), but they do say that they *plan* to make it HTML 3 compliant.
Netscape's tables are only partially compliant. They don't support the
ALIGN or COLSPEC attributes, and they include some Netscapeisms that aren't
in the standard.
>> >If you are going to point users to things like style sheets you better be
>> >able to point them to decent browsers they can use to see them on their
>> >platforms. Otherwise their eyes glaze over and they go back to netscapisms.
>>
>> I agree completely. However, if enough people can be convinced that HTML 3
>> and style sheets can produce the results they want, we can hope that they'll
>> start asking for those features from their browser authors.
>
>In a void this might work. But faced with the choice of doing things
>the Netscape way and doing without while they nag software vendors into
>doing things the HTML3 way real users in the real world are going to do
That's part of why I put up my HTML 3 demo page -- to show users that there
are things that they might want to do that HTML 3 can do and Netscape can't.
Still, the single most necessary item to get HTML 3 out there on the Web is
a good, complete browser available on a wide variety of platforms.
--
James HG Redekop
|In <40obq6$o...@NNTP.MsState.Edu> f...@Jester.CC.MsState.Edu (Frank Peters) writes:
|>If you are going to point users to things like style sheets you better be
|>able to point them to decent browsers they can use to see them on their
|>platforms. Otherwise their eyes glaze over and they go back to netscapisms.
|
|
|"If the standards exist, and are superior to netscape-isms, WHY didn't
|Netscape implement it that way?"
|
|It is an complete refutation of the often heard mantra about Netscape
|being on the cutting edge. It is not. It is on the trailing edge, it is
|a hack, and the only reason it has succeeded as it has, is because its
|quick and dirty hacks were able to get it to market first with some quick
|and dirty features that added just enough functionality over other
|browsers available, to distinguish it from the pack. But good technology,
|it isn't. Sophisticated, it isn't. They sold BS and said it was caviar,
|and thousands gulped it down.
However, he does have a point -- being out and available is 9/10ths of
"success", as measured by how many people use a product.
Other than UdiWWW, are there any production HTML3 browsers out there which
are in beta or later?
Mike Meyer
> In article <40h95f$4...@clark.net>, mik...@clark.net says...
> which Netscape sees 'border=20', and the ones that ignore this tag just
> see the 'border', which will generate the border for them. I tested this under
> MS-Windows Netscape 1.1N.
Did you test it under any HTML 3 browsers?
The ones I've tried it on don't need the second "border". They see the
first one and ignore the invalid value, treating it like <TABLE
BORDER>, giving you a border.
The problem is when you do <TABLE BORDER=0> (or is it BORDER="0"? A
language specification would be *soooo* nice), as recommended in the
NetScape table docs. NetScape gives you a table with no border, and no
room for it. Other browsers give you a border.
<mike
Tom Neff
>Well I wouldn't cry for Nescape just yet, with a $2 billion IPO
>they're too busy setting up accounts in the Caymans of Isle of Man to
>worry about registrations.
Keep in mind that $1 billion of that $2 billion went not to Netscape, but
to the top tier of institutional buyers who pre-ordered and then resold
at 70+ to suckers all across America. Netscape got $28 a share, less
fees -- everything else is the aftermarket.
What's more, those lucky stiffs holding their $58 and $70 shares of
Netscape out there in the hinterlands are now STOCKHOLDERS. Whom
Netscape must please, preferably with earnings. The days of "do what
you want and damn public opinion" are over.
>Netscape was released more or less free of charge ( yeah I read the
>licence) because they knew that market share is worth more than
>anything in this business, and the IPO proved it.
Opinions differ over what the IPO proved. One interpretation, focusing
on the canny middlemen who made most of the real money and the
technology-besotted small investors who then took a bath to pay for it,
suggests that the Netscape IPO mania is a sign the market has peaked.
Under this view, Netscape is the Immune Response of the 90's: that
biotech startup shot to 59 1/2 and is now trading at about 6.
Another interpretation is that Wall Street believes strongly in the
Internet, even if it doesn't quite know what it is, and figures that
capitalizing a money loser like Netscape is a better way to keep a
grip on future directions than just taking commercial paper from some
company like IBM or DEC who can tell the Street to go **** itself.
> Netscape was released more or less free of charge ( yeah I read the
> licence) because they knew that market share is worth more than
> anything in this business, and the IPO proved it.
Let's see them sell something first, then we'll talk about "market
share." Any idiot can give stuff away.
Brett Hawn
>>EH? I've been using netscape for appx 6 months now and I haven't sent
them
>>or anyone else a dime for it. Unless you're talking about the netscape
>>server you're way off in the wrong direction on this one.
>
ok folks.. I got enough mail on this one already.. stop sending it..
I hereby admit that I was in ERROR when I made this comment, it's been a
long long time since I read the netscape agreement. Being a student I
don't have to send them any money and I can only assume that over a period
of time my brain decided to take this to mean everyone. I'm sorry, I'm
wrong, it'll happen again, don't you doubt it for a second.
Brett
http://www.best.com/~piraeus
nothing of interest
but it amuses me.
Mike Batchelor
>In article <40q9mk$o...@nntp.msstate.edu>,
>Frank Peters <f...@Jester.CC.MsState.Edu> wrote:
>>According to James HG Redekop <tz...@csd.uwo.ca>:
>>> Lastly, SUN's HotJava is working towards HTML 3 compliance. Unfortunately,
>>> it only exists for Solaris and Windows NT.
>>
>>HotJava doesn't appear to be as far along on this front as Netscape.
>>I have the latest HotJava for Solaris release (1.0 Alpha 3) and it
>>doesn't do tables that Netscape handles (tables from the Arena demo pages
>>so I know they aren't in any way Netscape specific). And no detectable
>>style sheet support.
>>
>>I think that Arena is the best candidate on the UNIX platforms.
>>Unfortunately most of the sites which I actually use on a regular basis
>>(as opposed to surfing for fun) use features Arena doesn't support.
> There are no plans to turn Arena into a full-fledge browser, however. It is
> only meant as a test-bed for HTML 3.
True enough, but if the W3O would release some source code - like libwww3
- then other browser developers could incorporate the new features, or
at least have a model of how to do it.
Stan Friesen
|>
|> I don't think he was wrong at all - just because you haven't paid for it
|>
|> :(Netscape Navigator is...) free of charge if ...
|> : (b)
|> :your use of the Software is for the purpose of evaluating
|> :whether to purchase an ongoing license to the Software.
|>
limit on evaluation! So, if you have recently downloaded the
latest verson, you only have 90 days to register.
--
s...@elsegundoca.attgis.com sar...@netcom.com
The peace of God be with you.