Using Graphics as Bullets
Mark Thompson
trying to use colored ball graphics as bullets instead of the built in
black bullets and am running into a snag.
If the text wordwraps with the colored balls, the next line starts under
the ball and I want it to do what it does with the black bullets, that is
start the next line under the beginning of the text for the previous line.
I'm using Netscape 1.1N as my personal browser and it seems that it's the
defacto standard so I'm mostly worried about making it compatible with
that. I do though, want to make it so it's not totally unreadable with
other programs.
Any suggestions?
Thanks,
Mark Thompson
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Micro Masters E-Mail --> m...@lightside.com
PO Box 1709 Home/Business Phone --> (818) 332-5998
Covina, CA 91722
WWW Page --> http://metro.turnpike.net/M/mwt/
Resume --> http://metro.turnpike.net/M/mwt/resume.html
A. Hedges
>I'm having a problem creating a list in the way I want it. Basically, I'm
>trying to use colored ball graphics as bullets instead of the built in
>black bullets and am running into a snag.
>If the text wordwraps with the colored balls, the next line starts under
>the ball and I want it to do what it does with the black bullets, that is
>start the next line under the beginning of the text for the previous line.
Mark,
I struggled with the same issue when I put my pages together. I didn't find
any way to get text to do the hanging indent thing when using a gif as the
bullet. I settled on using the standard
<UL>
<LI>
</UL>
format. It's a tradeoff: pretty bullets or nicely formatted lists. I think
there are plans to make the type of bullet more flexible in future versions
of HTML... anyone have more info on this?
Peace,
--
Andrew Hedges........http://www.cif.rochester.edu/users/awhs/.index.html
Resident Director.......................alt.education.higher.stu-affairs
University of Rochester......................awhs@uhura.cc.rochester.edu
Lisa/Salamander
>From: m...@lightside.com (Mark Thompson)
>Subject: Using Graphics as Bullets
>Date: Sat, 29 Apr 1995 19:22:33 GMT
>I'm having a problem creating a list in the way I want it. Basically, I'm
>trying to use colored ball graphics as bullets instead of the built in
>black bullets and am running into a snag.
>If the text wordwraps with the colored balls, the next line starts under
>the ball and I want it to do what it does with the black bullets, that is
>start the next line under the beginning of the text for the previous line.
>I'm using Netscape 1.1N as my personal browser and it seems that it's the
>defacto standard so I'm mostly worried about making it compatible with
>that. I do though, want to make it so it's not totally unreadable with
>other programs.
>Any suggestions?
This method is a lot of extra work, but it may give you the results you
are looking for.
<ul>
<img src="bullet.gif"> Here is a long line of text that would be really<br>
<ul>nice if it indented properly.</ul>
</ul>
The extra <ul> will force the second line to "hang." If you size your
bullet properly, the two lines will line up.
Lisa
-------------------------------------------------------------
| Lisa Carter * Co-Editor, Game Zero Magazine |
| tea...@primenet.com |
| |
| design: http://www.primenet.com/~gmezero |
| automated html programming: http://www.travelweb.com |
| COMING SOON: http://www.verbatim.com |
| COMING SOON: http://www.gamezero.com |
-------------------------------------------------------------
Frederik Ramm
> I'm having a problem creating a list in the way I want it. Basically, I'm
> trying to use colored ball graphics as bullets instead of the built in
> black bullets and am running into a snag.
Lisa/Salamander (tea...@primenet.com) answered:
> <ul>
> <img src="bullet.gif"> Here is a long line of text that would be really<br>
> <ul>nice if it indented properly.</ul>
> </ul>
> The extra <ul> will force the second line to "hang." If you size your
> bullet properly, the two lines will line up.
And I say, that of course is complete nonsense because it will look
different with each font size, with each browser type and each window
size. It doesn't make sense to create a page that only displays nicely
with THE ONE BROWSER on THE ONE PLATFORM with THE ONE FONT and THE ONE
WINDOW SIZE. That would reduce the WWW idea to absurdity.
Instead, you should use the standard <UL> and <LI> tags, but add a SRC
atribute to the <UL>:
<UL SRC="bullet.gif">
<LI>Hello folks, blah blah blah
<LI>and again, blah blah blah
</UL>
This is HTML 3.0 and will work with Arena only at the moment, but
(1) all browsers that don't recognize HTML 3.0 will at least display
their standard bullet;
(2) it will look fine on all browsers,
(3) even on such that are not capable of graphics,
(4) and it won't be long till Netscape & Mosaic can process HTML 3.0 too.
Bye
Fred
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail ra...@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de ## fax +49 721 379786
Forrest Gump
Use that to IMG SRC your gif file and then include the text.
Mark Thompson writes in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.misc:
+ I'm having a problem creating a list in the way I want it. Basically, I'm
+ trying to use colored ball graphics as bullets instead of the built in
+ black bullets and am running into a snag.
+ If the text wordwraps with the colored balls, the next line starts under
+ the ball and I want it to do what it does with the black bullets, that is
+ start the next line under the beginning of the text for the previous line.
+ I'm using Netscape 1.1N as my personal browser and it seems that it's the
+ defacto standard so I'm mostly worried about making it compatible with
+ that. I do though, want to make it so it's not totally unreadable with
+ other programs.
+ Any suggestions?
+ Thanks,
+ Mark Thompson
+ =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
+ Micro Masters E-Mail --> m...@lightside.com
+ PO Box 1709 Home/Business Phone --> (818) 332-5998
+ Covina, CA 91722
+ WWW Page --> http://metro.turnpike.net/M/mwt/
+ Resume --> http://metro.turnpike.net/M/mwt/resume.html
--
|~\_/~\_/~\_/~\_/~\_/~\_/~\_/|\_/~\_/~\_/~\_/~\_/~\_/~\_/~\_/~\_/~\_/~\_/~|
| N. Sriram | Sh...@astro.ocis.temple.edu | http://monroe.temple.edu |
| Unixmenu Developer, Macintosh Archivist, WWW Builder, User-Support |
| 'course my views don't reflect my Employers, neither mine at times. |
|_/~\_/~\_/~\_/~\_/~\_/~\_/~\|/~\_/~\_/~\_/~\_/~\_/~\_/~\_/~\_/~\_/~\_/~\_|
Mark Thompson
>ALIGN RIGHT
>Use that to IMG SRC your gif file and then include the text.
I tried a few combonations of this but haven't been able to get the desired
results. Can you (or anyone) give a more detailed solution with possibly a
bit of source code?
Thanks
Mark
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Micro Masters E-Mail --> m...@lightside.com
PO Box 1709 Home/Business Phone --> (818) 332-5998
Covina, CA 91722
WWW Page --> http://metro.turnpike.net/M/mwt/
Resume --> http://metro.turnpike.net/M/mwt/resume.html
Mark Thompson
><UL SRC="bullet.gif">
><LI>Hello folks, blah blah blah
><LI>and again, blah blah blah
></UL>
Thanks, I had never heard of the SRC argument for the UL tag and it doesn't
work for the current version of Netscape 1.1 (like you said). Do you know
when this will be available for others? Plus, do you know if there will be
something like a <LI SRC=graphic.gif> tag for those personal pages who want
alternating color tags?
Thanks,
Michael Van Auken
> I'm having a problem creating a list in the way I want it. Basically, I'm
> trying to use colored ball graphics as bullets instead of the built in
> black bullets and am running into a snag.
>
> If the text wordwraps with the colored balls, the next line starts under
> the ball and I want it to do what it does with the black bullets, that is
> start the next line under the beginning of the text for the previous line.
>
>
> I'm using Netscape 1.1N as my personal browser and it seems that it's the
> defacto standard so I'm mostly worried about making it compatible with
> that. I do though, want to make it so it's not totally unreadable with
> other programs.
What I 've done in one case is to put the <IMG> tag in a headline, and
follow with a paragraph of text in the <BLOCKQUOTE> tag. It won't work
for all situations, but it did work for mine (a list of article titles
with descriptions)
Getting the image to be the right width is not allways guaranteed due to
the fact that the ammount of indent will vary with a number of factors.
Good luck,
--Michael
Michael Van Auken | Einstein has overcome time and space. Harvey
MVan...@UH.edu | has overcome not only time and space--but any
713/743-1502 | objections.
Junior
MVan...@UH.edu (Michael Van Auken) wrote:
" I'm having a problem creating a list in the way I want it. Basically, I'm
" trying to use colored ball graphics as bullets instead of the built in
" black bullets and am running into a snag.
"
" If the text wordwraps with the colored balls, the next line starts under
" the ball and I want it to do what it does with the black bullets, that is
" start the next line under the beginning of the text for the previous line.
"
"
" I'm using Netscape 1.1N as my personal browser and it seems that it's the
" defacto standard so I'm mostly worried about making it compatible with
" that. I do though, want to make it so it's not totally unreadable with
" other programs.
you might wanna do this:
<!-- start of list -->
<ul>
<dt><img src="bullet.gif"> This is the first item (Not selectable !)
<dt><img src="bullet.gif"> This is the second item (Not selectable !)
<dt><a href="http://www.xs4all.nl/~junior>
<img src="bullet.gif" BORDER=0> This is the first selectable item.. CLICK here :-)
</a>
<dt><img src="bullet.gif"> And this is the last item (Not selectable !)
</ul>
<!-- end of list-->
Greets, Remco
--
REMCO W. BROEKHOFF
e-mail : jun...@dds.nl, jun...@xs4all.nl
www : Junior's Clippin' Pages (Home for the CA-Clipper user...)
url : http://www.xs4all.nl/~junior/index.html
server : remark.xs4all.nl (194.109.13.196)
Marcus Edward Hennecke
Mark Thompson <m...@lightside.com> wrote:
>ry...@tp70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (Frederik Ramm) wrote:
>><UL SRC="bullet.gif">
>
>work for the current version of Netscape 1.1 (like you said). Do you know
>when this will be available for others? Plus, do you know if there will be
>something like a <LI SRC=graphic.gif> tag for those personal pages who want
>alternating color tags?
I don't know when other browsers will implement the src attribute, but
I do know that it is proposed for the <li> tag as well. For the latest
HTML 3.0 draft please consult:
http://www.hpl.hp.co.uk/people/dsr/html3/CoverPage.html
--
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>
Arjun Ray
>In article <MVanAuken-010...@129.7.49.1>,
> MVan...@UH.edu (Michael Van Auken) wrote:
[deleted: earnest inquiry regarding how best to preempt a browser's
automatic handling of bulleted lists and aligned text.]
>
>you might wanna do this:
>
><!-- start of list -->
><ul>
><dt><img src="bullet.gif"> This is the first item (Not selectable !)
><dt><img src="bullet.gif"> This is the second item (Not selectable !)
><dt><a href="http://www.xs4all.nl/~junior>
> <img src="bullet.gif" BORDER=0> This is the first selectable item.. CLICK here :-)
> </a>
><dt><img src="bullet.gif"> And this is the last item (Not selectable !)
></ul>
>
><!-- end of list-->
>
Please don't post gibberish. People may take your "advice" seriously.
Not only is this fragment syntactically wrong (do you check for ending
double-quotes?), it's also structurally absurd. "<ul>" is not some
obscure abbreviation for "indent", nor is "<dt>" an equally obscure
alignment directive, and stringing a bunch of <dt>'s inside a <ul> is
meaningless -- as far as HTML is concerned. Please RTFM to learn the
difference between Unordered Lists and Definition Lists.
As for NWKL (Netscape Way Kewl Lingo) -- you may do anything you
please. Who cares?
Cheers,
ar
Lester Pyle
>I'm having a problem creating a list in the way I want it. Basically, I'm
>trying to use colored ball graphics as bullets instead of the built in
>black bullets and am running into a snag.
>
snip
>
>Any suggestions?
>
>Thanks,
>
>Mark Thompson
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>Micro Masters E-Mail --> m...@lightside.com
>PO Box 1709 Home/Business Phone --> (818) 332-5998
>Covina, CA 91722
>
> WWW Page --> http://metro.turnpike.net/M/mwt/
> Resume --> http://metro.turnpike.net/M/mwt/resume.html
>
Try:
<DIR><LI>... </DIR>
Directory list (should be multi-column, but isn't in most implementations).
<LI> Begins each item in the above lists. An inline image can be used as a
custom bullet (preceding the list item) using the attribute
BULLET="URL". (This is not yet a part of standard HTML 2.0.)
Junior
ar...@nyc.pipeline.com (Arjun Ray) wrote:
"In article <3o2tgk$d...@news.xs4all.nl>, Junior <jun...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
">In article <MVanAuken-010...@129.7.49.1>,
"> MVan...@UH.edu (Michael Van Auken) wrote:
"
"[deleted: earnest inquiry regarding how best to preempt a browser's
"automatic handling of bulleted lists and aligned text.]
"
">
">you might wanna do this:
">
"><!-- start of list -->
"><ul>
"><dt><img src="bullet.gif"> This is the first item (Not selectable !)
"><dt><img src="bullet.gif"> This is the second item (Not selectable !)
"><dt><a href="http://www.xs4all.nl/~junior>
"> <img src="bullet.gif" BORDER=0> This is the first selectable item.. CLICK here :-)
"> </a>
"><dt><img src="bullet.gif"> And this is the last item (Not selectable !)
"></ul>
">
"><!-- end of list-->
">
"
"Please don't post gibberish. People may take your "advice" seriously.
["old news" deleted..]
"As for NWKL (Netscape Way Kewl Lingo) -- you may do anything you
"please. Who cares?
Right !
Ar,
The only thing i know is that it *works* in all web-browsers available
on the 'net. So who cares if it isn't the *best* way to do it..
There are more ways leading to the same results...
Could leave out the <ul> and <dt> stuff and end every line with a <br> and you'll
have the same result, ooopps no you haven't well make it a <blockquote>.. would
that work ?! and more and more and more......
Cheers, Jr.
Mike Meyer
> In article <3o3sdp$3...@pipe4.nyc.pipeline.com>,
> "As for NWKL (Netscape Way Kewl Lingo) -- you may do anything you
> "please. Who cares?
>
> Right !
>
> Ar,
> The only thing i know is that it *works* in all web-browsers available
> on the 'net. So who cares if it isn't the *best* way to do it..
I seriously doubt that you managed to test it on "all web-browsers
available on the 'net." It wouldn't surprise me to find that you
hadn't even managed to test it on all web browsers available for your
favorite platform (whatever that may be), as the problems in what you
posted would cause some of your text to vanish in some browsers
available for reasonably popular platforms.
If you're just writing for the browsers you care about, that's a
different matter - but you shouldn't offer your solutions as advice to
people who are authoring documents for the web.
The silly thing is that it's trivial to turn it into something that
has much the same effect, and is legal HTML according to the 11/15/94
DTD. Just use <dl> and </dl> instead of <ul> </ul>.
<mike
Marcus Edward Hennecke
>In article <3o3sdp$3...@pipe4.nyc.pipeline.com>,
>"In article <3o2tgk$d...@news.xs4all.nl>, Junior <jun...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>"Please don't post gibberish. People may take your "advice" seriously.
>
>on the 'net. So who cares if it isn't the *best* way to do it..
Really? You tried it with all available web browsers? On all
platforms? Somehow I seriously doubt it, given the number of browsers
available (did you also try it on Prodigy, AOL, netcom?).
So what are you suggesting? That we just code something up and then see
how it looks under every browser? And do it again whenever a new
browser pops up or a new version of an old browser? Seems like way too
much work to me. I'd rather stick to valid HTML and be confident that
it will be interpreted correctly by all browsers.
Arjun Ray
>In article <3o3sdp$3...@pipe4.nyc.pipeline.com>,
> ar...@nyc.pipeline.com (Arjun Ray) wrote:
>"In article <3o2tgk$d...@news.xs4all.nl>, Junior <jun...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>">
[ deleted: fragments of pseudo-markup having only the base character set
in common with HTML.]
>"Please don't post gibberish. People may take your "advice" seriously.
>
>["old news" deleted..]
>
>"As for NWKL (Netscape Way Kewl Lingo) -- you may do anything you
>"please. Who cares?
>
>Right !
>
>Ar,
>The only thing i know is that it *works* in all web-browsers available
>on the 'net. So who cares if it isn't the *best* way to do it..
All browsers? Are you implying your suggestion is *guaranteed* to work?
If so, can you explain *why*? Please be sure to cite the relevant draft
standard documents.
The original poster was quite clear in explaining that while he had a
browser of choice, he prefered a *general* solution if there was one.
There isn't, as far as HTML is concerned, and a response to that effect
would have been proper to a question posed in good faith.
What you posted was a standards-be-damned fragment that *may* work on
*particular* implementations for *entirely accidental* reasons, and
then suddenly fail to work for perfectly legitimate reasons.
Nobody said gibberish can't work -- sometimes. It still remains gibberish.
Cheers,
ar
Martian
==In article <3nu068$n...@covina.lightside.com> m...@lightside.com (Mark Thompson) writes:
==>From: m...@lightside.com (Mark Thompson)
==>Subject: Using Graphics as Bullets
==>Date: Sat, 29 Apr 1995 19:22:33 GMT
==>I'm having a problem creating a list in the way I want it. Basically, I'm
==>trying to use colored ball graphics as bullets instead of the built in
==>black bullets and am running into a snag.
==>If the text wordwraps with the colored balls, the next line starts under
==>the ball and I want it to do what it does with the black bullets, that is
==>start the next line under the beginning of the text for the previous line.
Use a table.
==>I'm using Netscape 1.1N as my personal browser and it seems that it's the
==>defacto standard so I'm mostly worried about making it compatible with
==>that. I do though, want to make it so it's not totally unreadable with
==>other programs.
==>Any suggestions?
Yes. Get that silly idea Netscape 1.1N is a defacto standard out of
your head. Netscape 1.1N is a *commercial* product, people will have
to pay to use it. (You do pay for it, don't you?) I bet a lot of
people prefer any of the free browsers available. If you write proper
HTML, it *is* compatible with *all* HTML browsers. If you use
Netscapisms, then your pages are viewable for a select group of people
only.
==This method is a lot of extra work, but it may give you the results you
==are looking for.
==<ul>
==<img src="bullet.gif"> Here is a long line of text that would be really<br>
==<ul>nice if it indented properly.</ul>
==</ul>
==The extra <ul> will force the second line to "hang." If you size your
==bullet properly, the two lines will line up.
*scream* This is horrid. A few reasons why it doesn't work:
- The nested <ul> has text outside <li> tags.
- You have no idea how much a browser indents with a <ul>.
- A browser might even put an extra blank line in.
- You don't know whether the browser displays images.
- 'Here is a long line of text that would be really' could have a
line break as well, depending on the windowsize of the browser and the
choosen font.
- It is possible 'Here is a long line of text that would be really nice if
it indented properly' fits on a single line.
Basically, with your solution, if the two lines line up,
it's a matter of luck.
Abigail
DaveHatunen
Martian <abi...@mars.ic.iaf.nl> wrote:
[...]
>Yes. Get that silly idea Netscape 1.1N is a defacto standard out of
>your head. Netscape 1.1N is a *commercial* product,
So is MS-DOS.
>people will have
>to pay to use it. (You do pay for it, don't you?) I bet a lot of
>people prefer any of the free browsers available.
Netscape IS free to a large class of users. And has a 90-day free trial
evaluation period, and the license explicitly states that
non-commercial users have no restriction of evaluation period. Thus,
for all practical purposes, it is free except to commercial users. And
since they seem to come out with new versions on less than a 90-day
cycle, it appears to be free to commercial users too.
I think Netscape has learned the lessons taught by Bill Gates and King
Gillette quite well. You may flail your arms and sound excursions and
alarums all you wish, but Netscape is becoming a de facto standard. We
will know for sure when Mosaic begins incorporating Netscapisms...
--
********** DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@netcom.com) **********
* Daly City California: *
* where San Francisco meets The Peninsula *
* and the San Andreas Fault meets the Sea *
*******************************************************
Mike Meyer
> In article <1995May2.0...@mars.ic.iaf.nl>,
> Martian <abi...@mars.ic.iaf.nl> wrote:
> >Yes. Get that silly idea Netscape 1.1N is a defacto standard out of
> >your head. Netscape 1.1N is a *commercial* product,
>
> So is MS-DOS.
And MS-DOS is only a defacto standard among MS-DOS users. For users of
other OS's, it an object of ridicule :-).
> Netscape IS free to a large class of users.
Only if "pirates" is the large class of users you have in mind.
Personally, I hope that people are a little bit more conscientious
than that.
> and the license explicitly states that
> non-commercial users have no restriction of evaluation period.
Last time I looked at the license, it only stated that people working
for academic and non-profit organizations had no restriction on the
evaluation period. This does *not* translate to "non-commercial
users".
> Thus, for all practical purposes, it is free except to commercial users.
That's still true - because there isn't any way for NetScape to really
enforce the limit on the evaluation period.
> I think Netscape has learned the lessons taught by Bill Gates and King
> Gillette quite well.
A lot of us have been comparing NetScape to MicroSoft and MS-DOS for a
while now. Nothing new here.
> You may flail your arms and sound excursions and
> alarums all you wish, but Netscape is becoming a de facto standard. We
> will know for sure when Mosaic begins incorporating Netscapisms...
No; we'll know for sure when the NetScapeisms show up in a an IETF
standard.
<mike
Arjun Ray
DaveHatunen <hat...@netcom.com> wrote:
>In article <1995May2.0...@mars.ic.iaf.nl>,
>Martian <abi...@mars.ic.iaf.nl> wrote:
>>Yes. Get that silly idea Netscape 1.1N is a defacto standard out of
>>your head. Netscape 1.1N is a *commercial* product,
>
>So is MS-DOS.
And any relation between MS-DOS and an intelligible standard is purely
coincidental...
[...]
>I think Netscape has learned the lessons taught by Bill Gates and King
>Gillette quite well. You may flail your arms and sound excursions and
>alarums all you wish, but Netscape is becoming a de facto standard. We
>will know for sure when Mosaic begins incorporating Netscapisms...
Netscape has origins (like Mosaic) in the work of graphics programmers.
Agreeably, the standard of graphics programming evidenced is rather
good.
Most everything else is deplorably bad. Broken parsing. Undisciplined
semantics. Casual disregard for related standards and protocols. Proven
ignorance of how SGML-based languages work -- which is what will
sustain the Web in the longer haul.
This constitutes a "de facto standard", as you would have it (and, as
surely it will be repeated by hype-mongers to the gullible), only to
those so impressed with graphics that, having in their own minds seen
everything, can't imagine there could be anything else to consider.
Data integrity. Well-defined and reliable formats and semantics. A
world-wide information distribution system. Interoperability.
Something that goes far beyond the latest fad in neat .sigs and cool .plans.
The Web is too big a dog to be wagged by a tail like Netscape.
Cheers,
ar
Martian
==In article <1995May2.0...@mars.ic.iaf.nl>,
==Martian <abi...@mars.ic.iaf.nl> wrote:
==[...]
==>Yes. Get that silly idea Netscape 1.1N is a defacto standard out of
==>your head. Netscape 1.1N is a *commercial* product,
==So is MS-DOS.
MS-DOS is *a* operating system, not *the* standard operating system.
==>people will have
==>to pay to use it. (You do pay for it, don't you?) I bet a lot of
==>people prefer any of the free browsers available.
==Netscape IS free to a large class of users. And has a 90-day free trial
==evaluation period, and the license explicitly states that
==non-commercial users have no restriction of evaluation period. Thus,
==for all practical purposes, it is free except to commercial users. And
==since they seem to come out with new versions on less than a 90-day
==cycle, it appears to be free to commercial users too.
What are commercial users? I am unemployed at the moment, I don't
think I'm a `commercial user'. Yet, accoording to the Netscape
license, I would have to pay for its usuage. Certainly, students and
members of educational institutes are a large class. But the are not
the majority by a long shot.
==I think Netscape has learned the lessons taught by Bill Gates and King
==Gillette quite well. You may flail your arms and sound excursions and
==alarums all you wish, but Netscape is becoming a de facto standard. We
==will know for sure when Mosaic begins incorporating Netscapisms...
Netscape will be forgotten as soon as browsers with a lot more toys
become available for many platforms. I wouldn't be surprised if within
the end of the year something like HotJava will be the crowds
favourite browser. If it is free that is.
Abigail
Alan S. Jones
> tea...@primenet.com (Lisa/Salamander) writes:
> ==>I'm using Netscape 1.1N as my personal browser and it seems that it's the
> ==>defacto standard so I'm mostly worried about making it compatible with
> ==>that. I do though, want to make it so it's not totally unreadable with
> ==>other programs.
> Yes. Get that silly idea Netscape 1.1N is a defacto standard out of
> your head. Netscape 1.1N is a *commercial* product, people will have
> to pay to use it. (You do pay for it, don't you?) I bet a lot of
> people prefer any of the free browsers available. If you write proper
> HTML, it *is* compatible with *all* HTML browsers. If you use
> Netscapisms, then your pages are viewable for a select group of people
> only.
Actually Netscape 1.1N is free for private/noncommercial use.
Netscape 1.1N also is sorta becoming the defacto standard.
It supports the preliminary standard of HTML 3.0. Mosaic from what
I can tell still does not support all of HTML 2.0. Mosaic was the
standard.
--
Alan S. Jones
a...@engr.latech.edu Louisiana Tech
or University
st2...@vm.cc.latech.edu << not used much http://www.latech.edu/~asj
Mario Klebsch DG1AM
>tea...@primenet.com (Lisa/Salamander) writes:
>==>I'm having a problem creating a list in the way I want it. Basically, I'm
>==>trying to use colored ball graphics as bullets instead of the built in
>==>black bullets and am running into a snag.
>==>If the text wordwraps with the colored balls, the next line starts under
>==>the ball and I want it to do what it does with the black bullets, that is
>==>start the next line under the beginning of the text for the previous line.
>==[lots of details deleted]
>[lots of problems with details deleted]
This is getting really funny. We are using HTML! in HTML you don't
specify the layout, you specify the structure of the document.
If you want to specify the layout, change the browser! The browser is
the only part of the system, that is responsable for the layout. It
can't be so hard to implement colored bullets. And there are lots of
other things waiting to be implemented. Does you browser support
<DIR></DIR> Tags? At least mosaic does not. Mosaic does not support
either. I don't know about netscape.
This is the way, HTML was meant. Just the HTML 3 aproach preserves
theis way.
Al the other methods have lots of problems. The problems to get these
pages formatted right are well discussed. But did you ever load a page
with colored bullets with delayed image loading? The items are torn
miles apart. almost unusable!
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
Mario Klebsch DG1AM
>In article <1995May2.0...@mars.ic.iaf.nl>,
>Martian <abi...@mars.ic.iaf.nl> wrote:
>[...]
>>Yes. Get that silly idea Netscape 1.1N is a defacto standard out of
>>your head. Netscape 1.1N is a *commercial* product,
>So is MS-DOS.
>>people will have
>>to pay to use it. (You do pay for it, don't you?) I bet a lot of
>>people prefer any of the free browsers available.
>Netscape IS free to a large class of users. And has a 90-day free trial
>evaluation period, and the license explicitly states that
>non-commercial users have no restriction of evaluation period. Thus,
>for all practical purposes, it is free except to commercial users. And
>since they seem to come out with new versions on less than a 90-day
>cycle, it appears to be free to commercial users too.
A lot of people prefer to use brousers, where the source is available
free. I don't like the idea to use a binary, that is not well suited
for my platform. The binary version of netscape (at least for solaris)
wastes memory and disk space. And these binaries never are configures
right, as the manufacturer can't know my configuration.
And binary distribution really is a waste of bandwidth.
Alan S. Jones
> Martian (abi...@mars.ic.iaf.nl) wrote:
> Netscape 1.1N also is sorta becoming the defacto standard.
> It supports the preliminary standard of HTML 3.0.
I was just corrected it supports part of HTML 3.0.
That is still more than many Web browsers around.
I know it supports tables, colors, dynamic updating, and few other things,
but not all.
Thomas Aaron Insel
> Netscape 1.1N also is sorta becoming the defacto standard.
> It supports the preliminary standard of HTML 3.0. Mosaic from what
> I can tell still does not support all of HTML 2.0. Mosaic was the
> standard.
Netscape does _not_ support the preliminary HTML 3.0 standard. It
supports only a few pieces of it. In particular, it doesn't support
the bits I'd really like to play with, like equations.
Tom
--
Thomas Insel (tin...@uiuc.edu)
"Language alone protects us from the scariness of things with no names."
-- Toni Morrison
Adrian Cooper
ar...@nyc.pipeline.com (Arjun Ray) wrote:
>In article <hatunenD...@netcom.com>,
>DaveHatunen <hat...@netcom.com> wrote:
>>Martian <abi...@mars.ic.iaf.nl> wrote:
>>>Yes. Get that silly idea Netscape 1.1N is a defacto standard out of
>>>your head. Netscape 1.1N is a *commercial* product,
>>
>>So is MS-DOS.
>
>coincidental...
>
>[...]
>
>Agreeably, the standard of graphics programming evidenced is rather
>good.
>
>Most everything else is deplorably bad. Broken parsing. Undisciplined
>semantics. Casual disregard for related standards and protocols. Proven
>ignorance of how SGML-based languages work -- which is what will
>sustain the Web in the longer haul.
>
>This constitutes a "de facto standard", as you would have it (and, as
>surely it will be repeated by hype-mongers to the gullible), only to
>those so impressed with graphics that, having in their own minds seen
>everything, can't imagine there could be anything else to consider.
>
>Data integrity. Well-defined and reliable formats and semantics. A
>world-wide information distribution system. Interoperability.
>
>Something that goes far beyond the latest fad in neat .sigs and cool .plans.
>
>The Web is too big a dog to be wagged by a tail like Netscape.
>
>
>Cheers,
>ar
Oh yes - and I suppose PCs are too big a dog to be wagged by a tail like
Microsoft, or a standard like the IBMPC and.............. <g>
HTML, WWW browsers, WWW servers etc.. NEED standards which everyone can work
to - not just HTML but Secure Transactions etc.. as well.
If any dog is going to wag the Web industry - Netscape is good enough for me.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adrian Cooper | A...@ENTERPRISE.NET
Enterprise PLC | HTTP://WWW.ENTERPRISE.NET
Leading Internet Services in the British Isles.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Meyer
> Actually Netscape 1.1N is free for private/noncommercial use.
Actually, Netscape 1.1N is free for use by employees of academic and
some non-profit (the one I work for doesn't count) organizations.
Check the license if you don't believe me, and ignore the initial
press release and the pre-1.0 public statements by Netscape employees
speaking for Netscape. The license is the only document that has any
legal force.
There is an open-ended evaluation period, but if you aren't an
employee of such an organization and have started using Netscape
instead of evaluating it, you've just become a software pirate.
> Netscape 1.1N also is sorta becoming the defacto standard.
> It supports the preliminary standard of HTML 3.0.
Netscape is slowly adding a few HTML3 features - sorta. It supports
tables - but not as per the current standard - and a few odds'n'ends
from HTML 3.0. Other than tables, it doesn't support any of the
features that would help solve some very common problems (FIG, for
instance. NOTE would be nice. So would "ALIGN=RIGHT"). With emacs-w3
and Arena support style sheets, Netscape is no longer even the browser
that gives the author the most control over the presentation.
> Mosaic from what
> I can tell still does not support all of HTML 2.0. Mosaic was the
> standard.
Neither does Netscape. Of course, most browsers haven't made the
transition from "a parser for a bunch of tags with <>'s around them"
to being SGML applications yet.
<mike
Paul Phillips
>There is an open-ended evaluation period, but if you aren't an
>employee of such an organization and have started using Netscape
>instead of evaluating it, you've just become a software pirate.
It's not even open-ended. From the 1.1N license:
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.
-PSP
--
"Unintentional humor here. But this is , in its understated way, a scream."
-- Andrew Beckwith
alt.flame
Mike Meyer
> I was just corrected it supports part of HTML 3.0.
> That is still more than many Web browsers around.
> I know it supports tables, colors, dynamic updating, and few other things,
> but not all.
I don't believe the NetScape table support matches the current 3.0
draft, though it at least tries. Ditto for the color support. The
dynamic updating support in NetScape is not part of HTML, nor is it
part of the proposed HTTP spec. Thed ideas used by NetScape for these
have been proposed by a numer of people, and probably implemented by a
few as well.
"Not all" is an understament; NetScape implements a small fraction of
HTML3. I wouldn't be surprised to find that most of the extensions to
HTML2 in NetScape weren't HTML3 either.
<mike
Russell McOrmond
>
>I can tell still does not support all of HTML 2.0. Mosaic was the
>standard.
If it's going to become a standard, could someone tell me where I could
download the sources?
What - No sources? Sounds like a stupid/non productive idea to lock yourself
into the use of propriatary software available only from one vendor.
(Then again, if you are using MS-WINDOWS, you won't care - in my case I'm
under Linux, and only use Netscape because I need to test pages under multiple
browsers).
I find the phrase 'defacto standard' amusing when talking about a
single-vendor propriatary product.
--
Russell McOrmond, Flora St, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, Earth, ...
<a href="http://www.carleton.ca/~rmcormon/">Russell's Home Page</a>
Freenet: A means to an end, not an end unto itself!
DaveHatunen
Mike Meyer <m...@contessa.phone.net> wrote:
>In <hatunenD...@netcom.com>, hat...@netcom.com (DaveHatunen) wrote:
[...]
>> Netscape IS free to a large class of users.
>
>Only if "pirates" is the large class of users you have in mind.
>Personally, I hope that people are a little bit more conscientious
>than that.
That's not the way I read the license...
>> and the license explicitly states that
>> non-commercial users have no restriction of evaluation period.
>
>Last time I looked at the license, it only stated that people working
>for academic and non-profit organizations had no restriction on the
>evaluation period. This does *not* translate to "non-commercial
>users".
When I get to work, I'll post the license. We can all dope it out for
ourselves.
>> Thus, for all practical purposes, it is free except to commercial users.
>
>That's still true - because there isn't any way for NetScape to really
>enforce the limit on the evaluation period.
>
>> I think Netscape has learned the lessons taught by Bill Gates and King
>> Gillette quite well.
>
>A lot of us have been comparing NetScape to MicroSoft and MS-DOS for a
>while now. Nothing new here.
I like the King Gillette analogy myself...
>> You may flail your arms and sound excursions and
>> alarums all you wish, but Netscape is becoming a de facto standard. We
>> will know for sure when Mosaic begins incorporating Netscapisms...
>
>No; we'll know for sure when the NetScapeisms show up in a an IETF
>standard.
The subject was de facto standards, not de jure standards..
Mike Meyer
> >> You may flail your arms and sound excursions and
> >> alarums all you wish, but Netscape is becoming a de facto standard. We
> >> will know for sure when Mosaic begins incorporating Netscapisms...
> >
> >No; we'll know for sure when the NetScapeisms show up in a an IETF
> >standard.
>
> The subject was de facto standards, not de jure standards..
One of the goals of IETF standards is to document the way things are
done (i.e. - de facto standards), so people doing new implementations
have a document they can refer to to make their stuff interoperable,
as opposed to having to wade around in the code of an existing
implementation to figure it out.
That's why some of the Mosaic 2.x crocks are in the HTML2 standard -
they've become a defacto standard. Unfortunately, figuring out what
they actually do requires wading around in the code :-(.
So, if NetScape's crocks become a de facto standard, they'll
eventually wind up in an IETF standard of some sort, even if it's
"Evil HTML practices we'd like to do away with, but so many people
have implemented them that we can't".
Note that NetScape's non-crocks are already in a draft IETF standard.
<mike
Michel Vuijlsteke
>I'm having a problem creating a list in the way I want it. Basically, I'm
>trying to use colored ball graphics as bullets instead of the built in
>black bullets and am running into a snag.
I just read through the entire thread and noticed noone really dolved
your problem.
Here's how _I_ would do it. This should work for all browsers that do
tables (i.e. Netscape 1.1, Mosaic Comet, Arena, ...):
<table> <!-- without border! -->
<tr>
<td><img src="yourbullet.gif"></td>
<td>Blah blah blah. Line one, etc. This will wrap ok.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><img src="yourbullet.gif"></td>
<td>Line two. Blah blah blah</td>
</tr>
</table>
This table might be too wide for you, so if you have Netscape or write
for a predominantly Netscape public, try changing <table> to <table
width=x> with x either a percentage (e.g. 75%) of screen width, or x
an absolute number in pixels.
If you want to see the bullet nicely displayed in front of the first
line of each "list item":
<tr><td valign=top align=right><img
src="yourbullet.gif">text</td></tr>
There ya go!
Michel.V...@rug.ac.be
WtI - IAA - AKZ Belgium (Moose Dept.)
http://eduserv.rug.ac.be/~mvuijlst/iaa/
Marcus Edward Hennecke
Alan S. Jones <a...@engr.latech.edu> wrote:
>Actually Netscape 1.1N is free for private/noncommercial use.
No, it is not. Read the license again.
>Netscape 1.1N also is sorta becoming the defacto standard.
I really hope not. But since Netscape (the company) said that they
will support HTML 3.0, I'd say it is unlikely.
>It supports the preliminary standard of HTML 3.0.
No it does not. It only supports a small fraction of HTML 3.0 (only
tables, really, no math, no style sheets, no align=right or
align=justify, no classes, no support for resolution independent
lengths, etc.) HTML 3.0 is really quite nifty and can easily blow
Netscape HTML out of the water. Please read the HTML 3.0 specs before
you so blindly follow someone else's standard.
> Mosaic from what
>I can tell still does not support all of HTML 2.0.
It supports about as much as Netscape.
> Mosaic was the
>standard.
Ah yes. And that brought us the IMG tag. An excellent example of what
can go wrong when the author(s) of one browser get to decide how to
extend HTML. They simply introduced a new tag without thinking about
the consequences. For example, it is not possible to specify an
alternate text that includes markup. Because of this deficiency we now
see a large number of pages with a "For a text version click here"
link. HTML 3.0 is trying to correct the mistakes made with the IMG tag
by introducing the FIG tag. Let's hope many browsers will soon support
it so we can make use of it. And while they're at it, let's hope they
also add support for the SHAPE attribute of the A tag (anchors).
DaveHatunen
[...]
>> Netscape IS free to a large class of users.
>
>Only if "pirates" is the large class of users you have in mind.
>Personally, I hope that people are a little bit more conscientious
>than that.
>
>> and the license explicitly states that
>> non-commercial users have no restriction of evaluation period.
>
>Last time I looked at the license, it only stated that people working
>for academic and non-profit organizations had no restriction on the
>evaluation period. This does *not* translate to "non-commercial
>users".
Here's the pertinent portions of the license. I would suppose that in a
larger sense at some point evaluators have stopped evaluating and
started using the software, from the practical point of view, Netscape
has apparently deliberately chosen to have the evaluation period of
unlimited length. By doing this, rather than granting an outright
license, they may be retaining some legal rights they might lose
otherwise.
***********************************************************************
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.
[...]
DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTY. Since the Software is provided free
of charge, the Software is provided on an "AS IS" basis,
without warranty of any kind, including without limitation
the warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular
purpose and non-infringement. The entire risk as to the
quality and performance of the Software is borne by you.
--
********** DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@netcom.com) **********
* Daly City California: almost San Francisco *
* but with parking and lower car insurance rates *
*******************************************************
DaveHatunen
Mario Klebsch DG1AM <m...@rob.cs.tu-bs.de> wrote:
>hat...@netcom.com (DaveHatunen) writes:
[...]
>>Netscape IS free to a large class of users. And has a 90-day free trial
>>evaluation period, and the license explicitly states that
>>non-commercial users have no restriction of evaluation period. Thus,
>>for all practical purposes, it is free except to commercial users. And
>>since they seem to come out with new versions on less than a 90-day
>>cycle, it appears to be free to commercial users too.
>
>A lot of people prefer to use brousers, where the source is available
>free. I don't like the idea to use a binary, that is not well suited
>for my platform. The binary version of netscape (at least for solaris)
>wastes memory and disk space. And these binaries never are configures
>right, as the manufacturer can't know my configuration.
>
>And binary distribution really is a waste of bandwidth.
Well, I'm just thrilled to hear what you prefer, but what has that got
to do with it?
88
Mike Meyer
< >
< >Personally, I hope that people are a little bit more conscientious
< >than that.
< >
< >> non-commercial users have no restriction of evaluation period.
< >
< >for academic and non-profit organizations had no restriction on the
< >evaluation period. This does *not* translate to "non-commercial
< >users".
<
< 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.
Fair enough - we're both wrong.
There's a free, unlimited evaluation period if you're not evaluating
it for commercial use.
However, it's not free for USE (as opposed to evaluation) for anything
but non-profit or educational institutes.
I stand by the original statement - if you're USING netscape, are not
an employee under clause a and haven't bought it, you're a pirate. If
you're still evaluating it, that's not the case.
<mike
DaveHatunen
Mike Meyer <m...@contessa.phone.net> wrote:
[...]
>I stand by the original statement - if you're USING netscape, are not
>an employee under clause a and haven't bought it, you're a pirate. If
>you're still evaluating it, that's not the case.
I'm still evaluating it.
david s. broudy
(DaveHatunen) wrote:
< In article <mkl.799680210@whoopi>,
< Mario Klebsch DG1AM <m...@rob.cs.tu-bs.de> wrote:
< >hat...@netcom.com (DaveHatunen) writes:
< >A lot of people prefer to use brousers, where the source is available
< >free. I don't like the idea to use a binary, that is not well suited
< >for my platform. The binary version of netscape (at least for solaris)
< >wastes memory and disk space. And these binaries never are configures
< >right, as the manufacturer can't know my configuration.
< >
< >And binary distribution really is a waste of bandwidth.
<
< Well, I'm just thrilled to hear what you prefer, but what has that got
< to do with it?
Really. Like I wanna compile every friggin app I get... I sure don't know
anyone who insists on getting the source code for Photoshop when they buy
it. Netscape is free. If you want source, write it yourself and stop
whining.
--
bro...@mizar.usc.edu -- New, Improved! -> http://wpc-4.usc.edu/
Will that be one lump, or two? \=\ /=/ \=\
Doug Jacobson
(david s. broudy) wrote:
> Really. Like I wanna compile every friggin app I get... I sure don't know
> anyone who insists on getting the source code for Photoshop when they buy
> it. Netscape is free. If you want source, write it yourself and stop
> whining.
Oh really? Netscape is a commercial product that costs $39 regardless of
platform for other than (as the license plainly states) "(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."
From looking at your address, you are using an educational institution's
connectivity, so I assume you're a student or faculty member. You're safe
until you graduate. But let's not be tossing around statements like
"Netscape is free." It does a great disservice to the folks who create
it.
Doug
****************************************************************
* Doug Jacobson Proud to be a Parrothead! Follow the *
* E-mail: jaco...@phoenix.net dancing life... *
* Web: http://www.phoenix.net/~jacobson *
****************************************************************