Netscape - will it ever catch up?
Pat Traynor
but I'm tempted to advise people to use IE. There are some nice effects
that can be done using style sheets that I'm losing with Netscape. My
favorite is having a fixed (non-scrolling) background.
Another problem that I'm having is that (as far as I can tell), Netscape
is ignoring "leftmargin=0" in my <BODY> tag. In IE, my images are
butting up nicely with the left edge of the browser, but in Netscape,
there is an 8-10 pixel gap. I've always believed that the leftmargin
attribute was official HTML. Am I wrong about this?
Does anyone know if the Netscape folks are doing anything to fix these
problems?
--pat--
--
Pat Traynor
p...@ssih.com
Steve Pugh
>I've been a big fan of Netscape forever, and it pains me to say this,
>but I'm tempted to advise people to use IE. There are some nice effects
>that can be done using style sheets that I'm losing with Netscape. My
>favorite is having a fixed (non-scrolling) background.
I assume that you are referring to non-scrolling backgrounds as done
with CSS and not the bgproperties=fixed attribute in HTML.
Netscape will presumably 'catch up' and start supporting the CSS
background-attachment property at some point, but it will probably
never support the HTML hack equivalent.
>Another problem that I'm having is that (as far as I can tell), Netscape
>is ignoring "leftmargin=0" in my <BODY> tag. In IE, my images are
>butting up nicely with the left edge of the browser, but in Netscape,
>there is an 8-10 pixel gap. I've always believed that the leftmargin
>attribute was official HTML. Am I wrong about this?
Yes, you are wrong. It's a Microsoft extension and only IE3+ supports
it, or is likely to ever support it. In Netscape 4+ the rough
equivalent is MARGINWIDTH=0 as an attribute of BODY. Of course
stylesheets are the preferred solution.
>Does anyone know if the Netscape folks are doing anything to fix these
>problems?
Download a copy of Gecko to see what the HTML/CSS engine for Netscape
5 will be like.
Steve
--
"My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor
Stephen Richard Pugh http://steve.pugh.net/
William G. Schlake
>I've been a big fan of Netscape forever, and it pains me to say this,
>but I'm tempted to advise people to use IE. There are some nice effects
>that can be done using style sheets that I'm losing with Netscape. My
>favorite is having a fixed (non-scrolling) background.
>
>Another problem that I'm having is that (as far as I can tell), Netscape
>is ignoring "leftmargin=0" in my <BODY> tag. In IE, my images are
>butting up nicely with the left edge of the browser, but in Netscape,
>there is an 8-10 pixel gap. I've always believed that the leftmargin
>attribute was official HTML. Am I wrong about this?
>
>Does anyone know if the Netscape folks are doing anything to fix these
>problems?
>
>--pat--
What some "see" as problems are to others just features or should I
say a lack of features. I agree IE has got pretty far beyond NS to the
point I rarely use it except to see how pages get "spoiled" in
Netscape. Version 5 is suspose to be very close to following "specs"
which should make the purist crowd happy but again what is likely to
be missing in "features" will stll leave Netscape just an also ran.
Sadly Netscape hasn't been a leader for a long time already. Five
years or less from now people will be saying Netscape, what's that?
Shawn K. Quinn - NO SOLICITING
| I've been a big fan of Netscape forever, and it pains me to say this,
| but I'm tempted to advise people to use IE. There are some nice effects
| that can be done using style sheets that I'm losing with Netscape. My
| favorite is having a fixed (non-scrolling) background.
Different users hve different tastes. Fixed backgrounds are among the
things I'm starting to find quite annoying. It's completely unnatural
to me to see the text move and the background just stay there.
Remember also some browsing situations never will be able to take
advantage of CSS.
| Another problem that I'm having is that (as far as I can tell), Netscape
| is ignoring "leftmargin=0" in my <BODY> tag.
You mean the leftmargin=0 that's *not* mentioned in the W3C HTML 4.0
standard?
| In IE, my images are butting up nicely with the left edge of the
| browser, but in Netscape, there is an 8-10 pixel gap. I've always
| believed that the leftmargin attribute was official HTML. Am I
| wrong about this?
Quite. Remember, different browsers will render the same content
differently, and this is a *feature* of HTML.
--
Shawn K. Quinn
Jerry Park
> On Tue, 04 May 1999 13:40:06 GMT, p...@ssih.com (Pat Traynor) wrote:
>
> >I've been a big fan of Netscape forever, and it pains me to say this,
> >but I'm tempted to advise people to use IE. There are some nice effects
> >that can be done using style sheets that I'm losing with Netscape. My
> >favorite is having a fixed (non-scrolling) background.
> >
> >Another problem that I'm having is that (as far as I can tell), Netscape
> >is ignoring "leftmargin=0" in my <BODY> tag. In IE, my images are
> >butting up nicely with the left edge of the browser, but in Netscape,
> >there is an 8-10 pixel gap. I've always believed that the leftmargin
> >attribute was official HTML. Am I wrong about this?
> >
> >Does anyone know if the Netscape folks are doing anything to fix these
> >problems?
> >
> >--pat--
>
> What some "see" as problems are to others just features or should I
> say a lack of features. I agree IE has got pretty far beyond NS to the
> point I rarely use it except to see how pages get "spoiled" in
> Netscape. Version 5 is suspose to be very close to following "specs"
> which should make the purist crowd happy but again what is likely to
> be missing in "features" will stll leave Netscape just an also ran.
> Sadly Netscape hasn't been a leader for a long time already. Five
> years or less from now people will be saying Netscape, what's that?
IE suffers from some flaws too. The largest of which is that it encourages
incorrect code. IE will present a page which Netscape will not, because it
will 'guess' what you wanted it to do.
When whatever language you program in must 'guess' what you wanted -- you are
in trouble.
The common complaint of 'Why won't my page work with Netscape?' should be
answered more often than not as 'It shouldn't work in IE either.'
--
Jerry Park
Affordable Production Tools
web site: http://www.apt.simplenet.com/
javascript utilities: http://www.apt.simplenet.com/javascript/
* Easiest email encryption system
Miguel Cruz
> What some "see" as problems are to others just features or should I
> say a lack of features. I agree IE has got pretty far beyond NS to the
> point I rarely use it except to see how pages get "spoiled" in
> Netscape.
One thing that keeps me using Netscape is the View Info command. I find it
incredibly useful for web development - and even more so for quick debugging
and analysis of pages created by people who need support.
miguel
William G. Schlake
>IE suffers from some flaws too.
Sure. Neither NS or MS are flaw free. Then again in several decades
working with computers at all levels I have yet to see any "perfect"
application. There is no such animal and likely never will be. That's
why I tend to throw cold water on purist pontificating. They seek a
"perfect" world, I prefer to accept that flaws are part of the real
world and simply find work-arounds to cure them. Anyone can whine and
rant. Those that ARE truly intelligent prefer to find fixes.
>The largest of which is that it encourages
>incorrect code. IE will present a page which Netscape will not, because it
>will 'guess' what you wanted it to do.
This is part of Microsoft's "philosophy" on software engineering. You
see it to varying degrees in many of their applications. Some people
see a browser that's "smart" enough to be able to decipher incomplete,
badly formatted, even wrong markup as a feature. No, I wouldn't expect
purists to agree, nor am I saying I do either just that's what they've
(Microsoft) has done. Another example is FrontPage that insists on
"correcting" markup it doesn't like. Hey, maybe there's a closet
purist or two on FP's Development Team. ;o)
>
>When whatever language you program in must 'guess' what you wanted -- you are
>in trouble.
But HTML isn't programming in the sense most people refer to
programming...that's the point. If HTML had a strict syntax supported
by a standards body that could "force" browser producers to follow
standards to the letter then that would be different. Sorry, we're not
at that point. It is simply too early in the game. HTML is still
evolving and until things settle down all we have is various flavors,
what I refer to as de facto standards. So it isn't surprising that the
two leading browser producers each has a different implementation of
so-called standards. I know purists don't like that, but again that's
the way it is. They (purists) prefer to whine over what is and what
could have been while I simply work around problems knowing there is
nothing I can do to "fix" them and simply whining over them
accomplishes nothing.
William G. Schlake
wrote:
You mean it makes it easy for you to "borrow" someone else's content.
William G. Schlake
K. Quinn - NO SOLICITING) wrote:
>Different users hve different tastes. Fixed backgrounds are among the
>things I'm starting to find quite annoying. It's completely unnatural
>to me to see the text move and the background just stay there.
Shawn, you would waste far less bandwidth if you simply listed the few
things that DON'T annoy you.
Miguel Cruz
>> One thing that keeps me using Netscape is the View Info command. I find
>> it incredibly useful for web development - and even more so for quick
>> debugging and analysis of pages created by people who need support.
>
How so? What I like is that it tells me the real and specified dimensions
for all the images, as well as things like form parameters, without having
to poke through the HTML.
miguel
Pat Traynor
> In message <92582520...@news.remarQ.com>, Pat Traynor <p...@ssih.com>
> | I've been a big fan of Netscape forever, and it pains me to say this,
> | but I'm tempted to advise people to use IE. There are some nice effects
> | that can be done using style sheets that I'm losing with Netscape. My
> | favorite is having a fixed (non-scrolling) background.
>
> things I'm starting to find quite annoying. It's completely unnatural
> to me to see the text move and the background just stay there.
"unnatural" or just different? Riding a bicycle is unnatural if you
haven't done it much. But "different" doesn't mean "bad".
There are a lot of poorly used backgrounds that I find annoying.
High-contrast images that make the text difficult to read. This doesn't
mean that backgrounds are a bad idea, it just means that some people
don't have any taste.
> | I've always
> | believed that the leftmargin attribute was official HTML. Am I
> | wrong about this?
>
> Quite. Remember, different browsers will render the same content
> differently, and this is a *feature* of HTML.
You have an unusual concept of the word "feature".
BTW - Thanks, Steve, for your suggestion of using "marginwidth" in the
body tag. This solved that problem for me.
Shawn K. Quinn - NO SOLICITING
| Shawn K. Quinn - NO SOLICITING (netaddic...@yahoo.com) wrote:
| > In message <92582520...@news.remarQ.com>, Pat Traynor <p...@ssih.com>
| > wrote:
| > | I've been a big fan of Netscape forever,
| > Different users hve different tastes. Fixed backgrounds are among the
| > things I'm starting to find quite annoying. It's completely unnatural
| > to me to see the text move and the background just stay there.
|
| "unnatural" or just different? Riding a bicycle is unnatural if you
| haven't done it much. But "different" doesn't mean "bad".
When I read a sheet of paper with a picture for a background, the
background "scrolls" at the same time as the text. In fact the only
other instance I can think of where the background may not "scroll" at
the same would be television graphics. (This does not imply the Web is
print, only that most of my reading was done from print at one time.)
| There are a lot of poorly used backgrounds that I find annoying.
| High-contrast images that make the text difficult to read.
I agree. Back before I learned how to be a World Wide Web author (as
opposed to someone trying to shoehorn DTP into HTML) I made this same
mistake. Now I look at the old version of my personal site and ask
"what was I thinking?" :-)
| This doesn't mean that backgrounds are a bad idea, it just means
| that some people don't have any taste.
Generally I find solid colors for backgrounds work best.
| > Quite. Remember, different browsers will render the same content
| > differently, and this is a *feature* of HTML.
|
| You have an unusual concept of the word "feature".
Being able to access the same content regardless of my browsing
situation at the time is a very powerful feature of the World Wide Web
and its associated languages (HTML being among them). It's a shame
people can't catch on to that.
--
Shawn K. Quinn
William G. Schlake
K. Quinn - NO SOLICITING) just had to babble:
>When I read a sheet of paper with a picture for a background, the
>background "scrolls" at the same time as the text.
I've never read a sheet of paper. I prefer to read the text on the
paper. Tell us what reading a sheet of paper is like Shawn. You prefer
20# paper or do you like to read something more weighty?
>In fact the only
>other instance I can think of where the background may not "scroll" at
>the same would be television graphics.
You really don't get out much do you. Never been to the movies and see
the opening or closing credits?
>I agree. Back before I learned how to be a World Wide Web author (as
>opposed to someone trying to shoehorn DTP into HTML) I made this same
>mistake. Now I look at the old version of my personal site and ask
>"what was I thinking?" :-)
I don't know. Post the URL's in question and we'll let you know if
you're really a WWW author or just another one of CIWAH's fakers that
thinks he's a web author.
>Being able to access the same content regardless of my browsing
>situation at the time is a very powerful feature of the World Wide Web
>and its associated languages (HTML being among them). It's a shame
>people can't catch on to that.
People quickly discovered the build in limitations of simplistic HTML
and have in general moved on when possible. That's OK, you can remain
in the shadows if you prefer. Trust me, you and fellow purists won't
be missed at all. ;o)
L. David Baron
> Netscape will presumably 'catch up' and start supporting the CSS
> background-attachment property at some point, but it will probably
> never support the HTML hack equivalent.
Mozilla supports it now (as of early last week). Not only that, it
supports it completely. MSIE only supported it on the body element (or
perhaps it was on any scrollable element). Mozilla supports it on all
elements. This means that the background is fixed to its position,
tiled (if necessary), and then clipped to the boundaries of the element
to which it is attached.
This will be in the M5 release which should be out later this week (or
perhaps early next week).
Now MSIE will have to catch up.
David
--
L. David Baron Freshman, Harvard dba...@fas.harvard.edu
Links, SatPix, CSS, etc. < http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~dbaron/ >
WSP CSS AC < http://www.webstandards.org/css/ >
Stanley Friesen [Contractor]
>see it to varying degrees in many of their applications. Some people
>see a browser that's "smart" enough to be able to decipher incomplete,
>badly formatted, even wrong markup as a feature. No, I wouldn't expect
Actually, I do agree in this *particular* case. There is an old saying
on computer science: be strict in what you generate, and be liberal in
what you accept.
Thus I do think a browser ought to *try* to do reasonable error recovery.
On the other hand, I think Web *editors* should encourage correct HTML based
on exactly the same principle.
> Another example is FrontPage that insists on
>"correcting" markup it doesn't like. Hey, maybe there's a closet
>purist or two on FP's Development Team. ;o)
Well, it if corrected it to markup that actually matched the specification,
AND if it allowed one to turn off or customize this behavior, it would be
(just barely) acceptible.
Timothy R Prodin
>Jerry Park <a...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>I prefer to accept that flaws are part of the real
>world and simply find work-arounds to cure them.
Of course, in my opinion, work-arounds don't cure problems;
they simply allow them to go merrily on, get worse, and
catch other people.
>Those that ARE truly intelligent prefer to find fixes.
Which, by definition, are not work arounds.
>nothing I can do to "fix" them and simply whining over them
>accomplishes nothing.
One item that gets brought up often in this discussion is that
the big two browser producers delivered to the market what the
market wanted. If we can show people that there is a better
way than tag soup and presentational markup then we can start
a groundswell of market force on MS.
damaged justice
> What some "see" as problems are to others just features or should I
> say a lack of features. I agree IE has got pretty far beyond NS to the
> point I rarely use it except to see how pages get "spoiled" in
> Netscape. Version 5 is suspose to be very close to following "specs"
> which should make the purist crowd happy but again what is likely to
> be missing in "features" will stll leave Netscape just an also ran.
> Sadly Netscape hasn't been a leader for a long time already. Five
> years or less from now people will be saying Netscape, what's that?
From a slashdot.org comparison, edited for readability. The original poster
was anonymous, or I would credit them properly. Important note: Mozilla is
now at Milestone 5, out of 9 planned before full release, and despite what
Jamie Zawinski has said, appears to be progressing well.
Internet Explorer 5
*******************
Sort of Javascript.
Sort of Java machine that sucks enormous rocks.
Loads fast. Displays fast. (Pentium only please)
HTML 1,2,3,4 incomplete, majorly buggy in areas.
CSS1 badly incomplete/buggy (mostly unusable).
[This is exaggerated; CSS1 generally works well in IE5.]
CSS2 badly incomplete/buggy (unusable).
DHTML badly hacked together with bad bad proprietary behaviors.
MASSIVE BLOAT. Around 30 megs installed for core functionality. 6 meg
download minimum.
Exceptionally clean, largely hard-coded UI. "World class."
Exceptionally useful mailreader included. (Outlook Express 5)
Brain-damaged XML.
Extraordinarily bad, almost alien DOM.
[Mostly exaggerated; the DOM works rather well, although it is proprietary.]
Mediocre support for XSL, a COMPLETELY INCOMPLETE standard being
rammed through the W3C with major assistance by Microsoft. (Perhaps
they need features for Office 2000)
Microsoft Windows or certain Macintosh platforms only. (Solaris does
NOT COUNT)
Horridly unreliable installation procedure.
Extreme work put into making MS-friendly web-apps, websites, and
scripting easy.
Bleeds memory.
PNG broke. But those animated gifs sure are purty. Hyuck.
[Poster later clarifies: "PNG images are mangled in terms of dimensions and
layout. Borders can get added for no reason. They decode quite slow. Some
funkier features of PNG (progressive display, et al) I do not believe work.
They make IE hork like it's loading the JVM. IE cannot be characterized as
adept at handing them, in my opinion."]
Integrated with OS to extreme degree.
If not given own process, brings down explorer.exe (MS's "windowing
manager" as it were) when it breaks. (every hour or so)
Cost: Free, as long as you write pages to the MS standard please.
Gimmick:feature ratio: 9:3 (channels count for 4, remember those?)
Things done right: User interface and simplicity. Easy to implement
interactions with a Windows environment. Usable by many. Quick.
Mozilla + Netscape 5.0 (at release in a few months, most standards
complete already)
**********************
COMPLETE REWRITE OF LAYOUT ENGINE AND MOST FUNCTIONALITY.
HTML 1,2,3,4 to-the-spec complete.
CSS1 to-the-spec complete.
CSS2 not promised, but largely functional.
RDF ready to roll.
Dynamic reflow of pages.
To-the-spec Javascript (ECMAscript) complete.
Whichever Java Machine you prefer, or a Netscape licensed one.
Very quick. Lightning quick at most tasks. A vast vast improvement
over NS4 and extremely competitive with IE5. A 386 may apply.
Legacy/standard DHTML all ready to roll.
EXTREMELY EFFICIENT. Minimal size. 4 MEGS download for browser and
e-mail client prior to optimization.
100% CUSTOMIZABLE CROSS PLATFORM USER INTERFACE. YOU CAN WRITE ONE
YOURSELF IN 15 MINUTES! I am an idiot at computers and I have done
this myself. Don't want a button or menu? DELETE IT IN MOMENTS. Want
something clean? Busy? Animated? Obnoxious? THEMED? Do it in MOMENTS.
The technology is completely open, called eXtensible User interface
Language (XUL) or something like that. NO BINARIES, JUST TEXT. You
will soon be able to ROLL YOUR OWN on the web.
GTK widgetry when used in *nix. NOT ONE SHRED OF MOTIF.
Exceptionally useful Open Source mailreader included.
Precise, to the letter XML.
Precise, to the letter DOM.
Incomplete standards will be included when they are user tested,
reliable, and DONE.
Install with whatever method/packaging you prefer. Like the
mozilla.org browser? Pull the tarball and COMPILE IT YOURSELF.
Probable ICQ and AOL AIM attached with the NS5 downloads. Highly
integrated if installed probably.
As bug-free as YOU WANT IT TO BE. I am a dillweed who couldn't code my
way out of a wet paper bag and yet bugzilla.mozilla.org let me report
and get fixed a bug in the image layout.
Drop in any image format you want thanks to a standardized image
processing interface.
Bug-emulation mode for the horrendously shitty IE and NS browsers.
Extremely modular.
It supports a few platforms... Obscure shit, nothing you'd use, like,
oh say...
Linux 2.x
Windows 95/98/OSRx/SPx/Mystery Upgrade X
Windows NT
Solaris Whatever Version
IRIX Whatever Version
Amiga Whatever Ya'll Use
OS/2
MacOS
BeOS
*BSD(?) (linux binary hosting?)
These are not promised, they are either complete or in progress.
Oh and if you've got a few buds and a few weeks you can port the mofo
to whatever platform your little heart desires. The GRUNT WORK HAS
BEEN DONE. Just give XPCOM a place to set it's feet, hook up some
shit, and you're done.
Cost: Free. As in beer, freedom, and bug-free.
Things done right: Technically, almost everything. As GOOD AS IT GETS.
Light on memory. Light on cycles. Complete from head to toe. Free.
Hackable. Yours. Forever.
The poster's reply to those who say "It's over, too late, Microsoft won":
"Is there an expiration date on HTML? XML? SGML? Linux took 9 years, Windows
took 9 years, computers took 40 years...This is only taking a year and it's
nearing completion."
To those who say "IEx is better":
"Why dontcha write up a XUL interface in about 5 minutes and make a precise
clone of it? That doesn't suck? And won't crash?"
To those who say it's still buggy/slow: It's pre-alpha, not even beta; it's
generating tons of debugging code during execution. Talk about a straw man!
I can't wait! Finally, a GUI browser that promises to be as good as Lynx!
--
I let go of the law, and people become honest / I let go of economics, and
people become prosperous / I let go of religion, and people become serene /
I let go of all desire for the common good, and the good becomes common as
grass. .oOo. [Tao Te Ching, Chapter 57, Stephen Mitchell translation]
William G. Schlake
wrote:
>William G. Schlake <comm...@hobsonsquare.com> wrote:
>
>> What some "see" as problems are to others just features or should I
>> say a lack of features. I agree IE has got pretty far beyond NS to the
>> point I rarely use it except to see how pages get "spoiled" in
>> Netscape. Version 5 is suspose to be very close to following "specs"
>> which should make the purist crowd happy but again what is likely to
>> be missing in "features" will stll leave Netscape just an also ran.
>> Sadly Netscape hasn't been a leader for a long time already. Five
>> years or less from now people will be saying Netscape, what's that?
>
>From a slashdot.org comparison, edited for readability.
Shame, the rant should be credited to the purist that wrote it. You do
know one requirement of being a purist is you must also be a Microsoft
basher.
Stanley Friesen [Contractor]
damaged justice <frog...@hempseed.com> wrote:
> Internet Explorer 5
> *******************
> Sort of Javascript.
>
> Sort of Java machine that sucks enormous rocks.
>
> Loads fast. Displays fast. (Pentium only please)
>
> HTML 1,2,3,4 incomplete, majorly buggy in areas.
>
> CSS1 badly incomplete/buggy (mostly unusable).
>
>[This is exaggerated; CSS1 generally works well in IE5.]
>
be no worse.
> Bleeds memory.
So did MSIE 4.
Now add:
Security Model: flexible and powerful. Allows setting different
security levels on a per-site basis.
>
> Things done right: User interface and simplicity. Easy to implement
> interactions with a Windows environment. Usable by many. Quick.
and security settings configurable on a per-site basis.
Why do I harp on this? Because it allows me to turn off scripting
for geocities, and still leave it *on* for my bank - *without* having to
manually change it each time I go from one to the other. Wonderful
feature.
>
>
> Mozilla + Netscape 5.0 (at release in a few months, most standards
> complete already)
> **********************
> The technology is completely open, called eXtensible User interface
> Language (XUL) or something like that. NO BINARIES, JUST TEXT. You
> will soon be able to ROLL YOUR OWN on the web.
Umm, how much does this slow the interface down?
>
> GTK widgetry when used in *nix. NOT ONE SHRED OF MOTIF.
>
I consider this a *dis*advantage. This means it is not integrated into
the rest of the windowing system under *nix. It now stands out like a
sore thimb.
>
> Things done right: Technically, almost everything. As GOOD AS IT GETS.
Well, overall it does seem to be very good.
Does its security model allow per-site configuration? Or would I have
to manually change security setting when I switch from a friendly
site to a nasty one?
Paul Mitchum
<mailto:sta...@West.Sun.COM> wrote:
>> Things done right: Technically, almost everything. As GOOD AS IT GETS.
>
>Well, overall it does seem to be very good.
>
>Does its security model allow per-site configuration? Or would I have
>to manually change security setting when I switch from a friendly
>site to a nasty one?
>
The point is this: if Mozilla doesn't have the feature you want, you tell
them, 'Hey, I'd like this feature.' Then, a little later, after the code
elves do their little rituals, it's appears magically in the next release.
Or you could even write it yourself and give it away to everyone else.
Could you fire off a suggestion email to Microsoft (or whoever else) and
actually have a hope of getting it implemented?
raq...@my-dejanews.com
>
> One thing that keeps me using Netscape is the View Info command. I find it
> incredibly useful for web development - and even more so for quick debugging
> and analysis of pages created by people who need support.
I find that the View Image is really useful in learning how an image has been
cropped or sliced. Also, "open frame in new window" is really great when
trying to get a URL of a specific portion of a frames website.
Neither of these features are exist in MSIE. Also, what's with the miniscule
window at the bottom of the frame in MSIE that is supposed to tell you where
a link goes when your cursor passes over it. Is there some way to enlarge
this or is it just anothe MSIE screw up?
raq
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Braden N. McDaniel
> > GTK widgetry when used in *nix. NOT ONE SHRED OF MOTIF.
> >
> the rest of the windowing system under *nix. It now stands out like a
> sore thimb.
What windowing system? "*nix" has no single windowing system. If you're
talking about the Motif Window Manager, then GTK has a theme that I
think should provide a pretty good visual reproduction. (I can't comment
specifically on how well it meshes since I don't use MWM.) GTK's themes
should mean that it will be configurable for visual consistency with
just about any window manager.
--
Braden N. McDaniel
bra...@endoframe.com
<URI:http://www.endoframe.com>
Miguel Cruz
> Also, what's with the miniscule window at the bottom of the frame in MSIE
> that is supposed to tell you where a link goes when your cursor passes
> over it. Is there some way to enlarge this or is it just anothe MSIE
> screw up?
As far as I know, the only way is to make the IE window several screens wide
(keep moving the window off the screen to the left, then pull the resize
widget to the right... even at 1600x1200 I have to do this when I'm using
IE).
miguel
Chris Burch
<raq...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>Neither of these features are exist in MSIE. Also, what's with the miniscule
>window at the bottom of the frame in MSIE that is supposed to tell you where
>a link goes when your cursor passes over it. Is there some way to enlarge
>this or is it just anothe MSIE screw up?
If you use Windoze 95/8 or NT, a guy has made a free little dll you
can install to alter this behavior. It works pretty well. You can
get it at <http://mdbo.ne.mediaone.net/Statbar.html>
HTH,
Chris
--
Found poetry for May:
"Is this 555-6250?"
"No, it isn't."
"Oh, I guess I don't have his number then."
William G. Schlake
>On Fri, 07 May 1999 05:56:51 GMT, it appears raq...@my-dejanews.com
><raq...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>
>>Neither of these features are exist in MSIE.
>Chris
Typical clueless Microsoft basher stumbling around. The Status Bar has
been expanded in IE5 to about 80% width of the browser's window due to
Microsoft "listening" to requests from customers.
Can you say Upgrade?
Can you afford FREE?
Miguel Cruz
> been expanded in IE5 to about 80% width of the browser's window due to
> Microsoft "listening" to requests from customers.
Well, that still doesn't provide it with Netscape's useful web authoring
tools. Plus, the URL pulldown-FTP bug makes IE5 all but unusable if you've
used it for visiting FTP sites.
miguel
William G. Schlake
wrote:
>William G. Schlake <comm...@hobsonsquare.com> wrote:
Typical response from a Microsoft basher. Go play with your Mac.
Miguel Cruz
>> Well, that still doesn't provide it with Netscape's useful web authoring
>> tools. Plus, the URL pulldown-FTP bug makes IE5 all but unusable if
>> you've used it for visiting FTP sites.
>
I don't have one.
miguel
Nick Kew
> Why do I harp on this? Because it allows me to turn off scripting
> for geocities, and still leave it *on* for my bank - *without* having to
Does it allow you to keep images, cookies, colours, fonts, backgrounds, etc
on for selected sites, but off for unknown sites? Now that would indeed
be nice in a graphical browser.
>> GTK widgetry when used in *nix. NOT ONE SHRED OF MOTIF.
>>
> I consider this a *dis*advantage. This means it is not integrated into
> the rest of the windowing system under *nix. It now stands out like a
> sore thimb.
Doesn't that presuppose you are using a Motif-based WM? That's your choice,
but certainly not mine.
--
Nick Kew
- if Pinochet can be extradited for murders abroad, so can Blair and Short.
Stanley Friesen [Contractor]
>On Thu, May 6, 1999 11:04 AM, Stanley Friesen [Contractor]
><mailto:sta...@West.Sun.COM> wrote:
>
>The point is this: if Mozilla doesn't have the feature you want, you tell
>them, 'Hey, I'd like this feature.' Then, a little later, after the code
>elves do their little rituals, it's appears magically in the next release.
That assumes it gets sufficient interest to get sombody to implement it.
Essentially, if it is not yet on the schedule, I doubt it will be implemented
in a timely manner. [I have serious reservations about switching to this
product without the feature].
>Or you could even write it yourself and give it away to everyone else.
I generally do not have the time to write code for free.
William G. Schlake
wrote:
>William G. Schlake <comm...@hobsonsquare.com> wrote:
You should. It fits your personality. A nice toy for you, they even
comes in pretty colors now. ;o)
Shawn K. Quinn - NO SOLICITING
| Typical clueless Microsoft basher stumbling around. The Status Bar has
| been expanded in IE5 to about 80% width of the browser's window due to
| Microsoft "listening" to requests from customers.
|
| Can you afford FREE?
My time spent waiting for the download is not free (even at minimum
wage it would be worth around $10-15). For some people, they have to
pay for downloads by the byte. That is definitely *NOT* free.
In the USA (and Canada?), we are fortunate: ISPs have not (yet)
decided to charge for bandwidth usage by the byte, because phone line
use is much more of an issue so far.
--
Shawn K. Quinn
William G. Schlake
K. Quinn - NO SOLICITING) wrote:
>In message <3738f8d4...@news.enteract.com>, William G. Schlake
><comm...@hobsonsquare.com> wrote:
>| Typical clueless Microsoft basher stumbling around. The Status Bar has
>| been expanded in IE5 to about 80% width of the browser's window due to
>| Microsoft "listening" to requests from customers.
>|
>| Can you say Upgrade?
>| Can you afford FREE?
>
>My time spent waiting for the download is not free (even at minimum
>wage it would be worth around $10-15).
Are your trying to tell us that at the age of 23 you're only earning
minimum wages? Well Naperville is rather short of unskilled help.
Most of the fast food joints are offering $7.50 an hour. That's over
minimum by a fair amount. You interested? I may even rent you a room.
You'd have to cut the grass, walk the dog, stuff like that. ;o)
>For some people, they have to
>pay for downloads by the byte. That is definitely *NOT* free.
Yes, I'm sure and some people have to wait in line to get feed too.
The fact is a great many people pay a one time charge if anything for
a local call. As far as spending "time" anytime I upgrade I simply
start the process and go to lunch, dinner, whatever. No problem. No
cost. No bother. I'm sure I'm not the only one.
>
>In the USA (and Canada?), we are fortunate: ISPs have not (yet)
>decided to charge for bandwidth usage by the byte, because phone line
>use is much more of an issue so far.
And if they start the competition will blow them out of the water.
What you worried?
Nick Traenkner
> I've been a big fan of Netscape forever, and it pains me to say this,
> but I'm tempted to advise people to use IE.
Same thing has happened with us.
It seems like a difficult time for the WWW lately- many of the HTML hacks
used by authors in the past seem to have been addressed and might, finally,
be implemented clearly and effectively. But, as we are finding, most
clients would prefer (understandably- due to it's widespread use) a site
developed for AOL3.0 (which takes us back to hacking HTML with tables
etc...) The consensus is, users don't upgrade browsers- they just keep
using the one they recieved when they first joined $ISP. This is a very
real problem with issues of accessibility emerging from the DOJ suggesting
that sites who do business with the government might be required to provide
accessible sites (consider the difficulties HTML3.2 has with displaying
forms in a meaningful way to a blind user, not to mention the difficulties
with giving focus to an element etc...).
The Netscape vs. IE argument:
Both products have problems- I suppose I should ask what IE version you are
comparing to what NN version. I have been using IE5.0b for months- I use it
when I write stylesheets becasue, over-all it handles more 4.0 elements
than NN4.5 (tho still does not support OPTGROUP select elements, nor does
it handle the seperate rendering of THEAD/FOOT and TBODY items, nor does it
scroll the body independantly of the head). NN4.5 doesn't seem to be a 4.0
browser- doesn't seem like it makes any claims either. But Gecko seems to
handle all the 4.0 elements that IE5 does and then some.
As an aside, NN4.5 displays css1 margins and paddings (I beleive) better
than IE5. Gecko is just too buggy to use (and it's not a product yet, so
that doesn't bother me- neither do IE5s 'bugs')
Regardless of authorial preference (which seems inconsequential, since I
find nothing that cannot be done in 4 that could in 3.2) when one considers
what HTML4 offers, the choice seems obvious- but then there is the
pragmatic side of web authoring- i.e., the business. The Web might be in a
transitional period, and until the majority of users upgrade to an HTML4
browser, we will still be asked to hack pages with primitive tools and
(eep!) single-pixel t-gifs? I hope not.
-nick
Miguel Cruz
> On Fri, 07 May 1999 20:10:48 GMT, netaddic...@yahoo.com (Shawn
> K. Quinn - NO SOLICITING) wrote:
>> My time spent waiting for the download is not free (even at minimum
>> wage it would be worth around $10-15).
>
> Are your trying to tell us that at the age of 23 you're only earning
> minimum wages?
The $10 figure is with his 8Mbps cable modem.
miguel
Stanley Friesen [Contractor]
Braden N. McDaniel <bra...@endoframe.com> wrote:
>"Stanley Friesen [Contractor]" wrote:
>What windowing system? "*nix" has no single windowing system.
While the above is srictly true, it is also true that CDE is becoming pretty
much the de facto standard, and it is built around a Motif basis.
> If you're
>talking about the Motif Window Manager, then GTK has a theme that I
>think should provide a pretty good visual reproduction. (I can't comment
>specifically on how well it meshes since I don't use MWM.) GTK's themes
>should mean that it will be configurable for visual consistency with
>just about any window manager.
>
Consistancy also involves: interaction with cut&paste through the WM,
and shutdown/start-up processing via the session manager (proper DCE
apps arrange to be restarted in the next session when a session ends),
and various other subtle behavioral aspects (menu layout, hot keys,
menu item behavior, and so on).
[Indeed, one of the worst problems with X-Window applications is the gross
inconsistancy in how cut&paste is handled].
There is a great deal of work involved in properly integrating an application
into the windowing environment, especially when DCE is the one in use.
I really doubt something as generic as "themes" will suffice to make all the
*behaviors* match those of a properly integrated CDE/Motif application.
[And that totally ignores the issue of whether an interpretive GUI can
be as fast and efficient as a compiled binary GUI - this is why I am
leery of tcl applications].
Shawn K. Quinn - NO SOLICITING
| On Fri, 07 May 1999 20:10:48 GMT, netaddic...@yahoo.com (Shawn
| K. Quinn - NO SOLICITING) wrote:
|
| >| Typical clueless Microsoft basher stumbling around. The Status Bar has
| >| been expanded in IE5 to about 80% width of the browser's window due to
| >| Microsoft "listening" to requests from customers.
| >|
| >| Can you say Upgrade?
| >| Can you afford FREE?
| >
| >wage it would be worth around $10-15).
|
| Are your trying to tell us that at the age of 23 you're only earning
| Most of the fast food joints are offering $7.50 an hour. That's over
| minimum by a fair amount. You interested? I may even rent you a room.
| You'd have to cut the grass, walk the dog, stuff like that. ;o)
That's not necessarily true from what I said but it happens to be true
at the moment. Frankly, I politely decline this offer of yours for
many reasons, none of which are even close to on topic here. (I do
subscribe to alt.fast.food.)
| >For some people, they have to
| >pay for downloads by the byte. That is definitely *NOT* free.
|
| Yes, I'm sure and some people have to wait in line to get feed too.
| The fact is a great many people pay a one time charge if anything for
| a local call. As far as spending "time" anytime I upgrade I simply
| start the process and go to lunch, dinner, whatever. No problem. No
| cost. No bother. I'm sure I'm not the only one.
I have done this too (particularly when grabbing the newest Emacs or
Netscape Communicator). Even if "a great many" pay one fee for a local
call that does not make it any less expensive for those that pay by
the minute or byte for 'Net access (whether phone calls are involved
or not).
| >In the USA (and Canada?), we are fortunate: ISPs have not (yet)
| >decided to charge for bandwidth usage by the byte, because phone line
| >use is much more of an issue so far.
|
| And if they start the competition will blow them out of the water.
| What you worried?
Web hosting companies already do. What could happen is "unmetered"
access will start to become a bit more expensive and as an option one
can buy metered access again at a reduction in cost. If the unmetered
holdouts eventually go out of business, what does that leave?
--
Shawn K. Quinn
Braden N. McDaniel
>
> In article <3732C8E2...@shadow.net>,
> Braden N. McDaniel <bra...@endoframe.com> wrote:
> >"Stanley Friesen [Contractor]" wrote:
> >What windowing system? "*nix" has no single windowing system.
>
> While the above is srictly true, it is also true that CDE is becoming pretty
> much the de facto standard, and it is built around a Motif basis.
My understanding is that development of CDE has stagnated or stopped,
making its replacement inevitable. GNOME and/or KDE seem likely
candidates. Similarly, Motif does not have the level of ubiquity on free
Unices as it has on the traditional systems, basically because Motif
ain't free. The most important Unix target for Mozilla is Linux. I think
this and general developer dissatisfaction with the design of the Motif
toolkit were the motivating factors for Netscape's selection of GTK for
Mozilla.
> > If you're
> >talking about the Motif Window Manager, then GTK has a theme that I
> >think should provide a pretty good visual reproduction. (I can't comment
> >specifically on how well it meshes since I don't use MWM.) GTK's themes
> >should mean that it will be configurable for visual consistency with
> >just about any window manager.
> >
> Consistancy also involves: interaction with cut&paste through the WM,
> and shutdown/start-up processing via the session manager (proper DCE
> apps arrange to be restarted in the next session when a session ends),
> and various other subtle behavioral aspects (menu layout, hot keys,
> menu item behavior, and so on).
>
> [Indeed, one of the worst problems with X-Window applications is the gross
> inconsistancy in how cut&paste is handled].
That's true, and this is a good point. But I think the persistent lack
of consistency here and the length of time Motif has been around is a
good indicator that Motif is unable to solve this problem.
William G. Schlake
K. Quinn - NO SOLICITING) wrote:
>| Are your trying to tell us that at the age of 23 you're only earning
>| minimum wages? Well Naperville is rather short of unskilled help.
>| Most of the fast food joints are offering $7.50 an hour. That's over
>| minimum by a fair amount. You interested? I may even rent you a room.
>| You'd have to cut the grass, walk the dog, stuff like that. ;o)
>
>That's not necessarily true from what I said but it happens to be true
>at the moment.
Thanks for confirming what I've suspected. Shawn is a twenty-three
year old hamburger flipper or do you work for the colonel? What a
waste with all your computer (knowledge) Shawn. Heck, when I was 23, I
already was assistant head of my department and had a multi-million
dollar budget to oversee. That was back in the late sixties. LOL!
Tell you what, next time I bump into Billy at a trade show or
something I'll ask him if he could use another computer "expert",
maybe you could oversee the shrink wrap on boxes of Windows 2000.
Think you could handle it?
Shawn K. Quinn - NO SOLICITING
| On Sat, 08 May 1999 07:03:02 GMT, netaddic...@yahoo.com (Shawn
| K. Quinn - NO SOLICITING) wrote:
| >That's not necessarily true from what I said but it happens to be true
| >at the moment.
|
| Thanks for confirming what I've suspected. Shawn is a twenty-three
| year old hamburger flipper or do you work for the colonel?
That shouldn't really matter to you. I obviously don't intend to stay
at this job forever.
| What a waste with all your computer (knowledge) Shawn.
Everyone has to get their start somewhere.
| Heck, when I was 23, I already was assistant head of my department
| and had a multi-million dollar budget to oversee. That was back in
| the late sixties. LOL!
Gee, good for you.
| Tell you what, next time I bump into Billy at a trade show or
| something I'll ask him if he could use another computer "expert",
| maybe you could oversee the shrink wrap on boxes of Windows 2000.
| Think you could handle it?
I would like to make it a matter of public notice that: 1) I *never*
wish to work for Microsoft, and 2) use of my name, e-mail address, or
other information about me in this manner as a potential employee is
prohibited to Microsoft staff, particularly the HR department.
--
Shawn K. Quinn
William G. Schlake
K. Quinn - NO SOLICITING) wrote:
>| Tell you what, next time I bump into Billy at a trade show or
>| something I'll ask him if he could use another computer "expert",
>| maybe you could oversee the shrink wrap on boxes of Windows 2000.
>| Think you could handle it?
>
>I would like to make it a matter of public notice that: 1) I *never*
>wish to work for Microsoft, and 2) use of my name, e-mail address, or
>other information about me in this manner as a potential employee is
>prohibited to Microsoft staff, particularly the HR department.
Hello Shawn....don't you even know when someone is teasing you?
Since you're always so "serious" perhaps you'd like to share why you
have what many would find an odd signature. What's behind the Shwan K.
Quinn - NO SOLICITING handle, currious minds want to know.
Nick Kew
> inconsistancy in how cut&paste is handled].
Erm - that'll be the "sun.com" versions of xwindows - as per your address?
Yes, Sun's cmdtool, shelltool, etc are a disaster of incompatibility
with (other) X applications. And both SunOS and Solaris default
installations make it worse by thrusting a crippled toolset on you.
But when on Linux or FreeBSD, Irix or HP-UX I've *never* encountered
that kind of incompatibility: cut-and-paste works just fine between all
programs that display text. And I don't need clumsy key sequences
(ctrl-V/C/X etc) or equally unwieldy keypad stuff for cut-and-paste, either.
Joshua Kramer
netaddic...@yahoo.com wrote:
> In message <373655f5...@news.enteract.com>, William G. Schlake
> <comm...@hobsonsquare.com> wrote:
> | On Sat, 08 May 1999 07:03:02 GMT, netaddic...@yahoo.com (Shawn
> | K. Quinn - NO SOLICITING) wrote:
> | >That's not necessarily true from what I said but it happens to be true
> | >at the moment.
> |
> | Thanks for confirming what I've suspected. Shawn is a twenty-three
> | year old hamburger flipper or do you work for the colonel?
>
> That shouldn't really matter to you. I obviously don't intend to stay
> at this job forever.
Oh man, that's embarassing.
--
Joshua B. Kramer, (Currently located - Bozo Bin) joshk...@iname.com
Knight of the Ancient Garter of Romath (WE ARE ALL ROMATH)
Don't try making me look like the fol, because you'll never succeed.
-Romath in <37276af5...@news.vianet.on.ca>
Stanley Friesen [Contractor]
Subject: Re: Netscape - will it ever catch up?
Summary:
Expires:
References: <92582520...@news.remarQ.com> <slrn7j5slo.3...@d23321.madison.k12.wi.us> <3738f8d4...@news.enteract.com> <uBDY2.6204$YB4.3...@news2.giganews.com>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: SunSoft South, Los Angeles, CA
Keywords:
Cc:
In article <uBDY2.6204$YB4.3...@news2.giganews.com>,
Miguel Cruz <use...@admin.u.nu> wrote:
>William G. Schlake <comm...@hobsonsquare.com> wrote:
>> Typical clueless Microsoft basher stumbling around. The Status Bar has
>> been expanded in IE5 to about 80% width of the browser's window due to
>> Microsoft "listening" to requests from customers.
>
>Well, that still doesn't provide it with Netscape's useful web authoring
>tools.
From what I have heard of these tools, they are almost as bad as FrontPage
in terms of producing bloated, browser-specific markup. I would never use
Netscape's authoring tools.
> Plus, the URL pulldown-FTP bug makes IE5 all but unusable if you've
>used it for visiting FTP sites.
I admit I use WsFTP for serious ftp work, but I have never seen a serious
problem with merely downloading a file by ftp using MSIE.
[Also, I doubt I would stop using WsFTP just because I got Netscape].
Miguel Cruz
>> Well, that still doesn't provide it with Netscape's useful web authoring
>> tools.
>
> From what I have heard of these tools, they are almost as bad as FrontPage
> in terms of producing bloated, browser-specific markup. I would never use
> Netscape's authoring tools.
I was talking about diagnostic tools like "View Info", the nice wide link
target display at the bottom, and the JavaScript debugging apparatus. These
things are addictive.
You won't find me defending Netscape Composer.
miguel
Clinton Gallagher
HTML edits. I remain a die hard HomeSite user regardless. Aside from the
many reasons nobody has a table or frame wizard that kicks out complex
designs like HomeSite.
Stanley Friesen [Contractor]
Miguel Cruz <use...@admin.u.nu> wrote:
>Stanley Friesen [Contractor] <sta...@West.Sun.COM> wrote:
>>> Well, that still doesn't provide it with Netscape's useful web authoring
>>> tools.
>>
>> From what I have heard of these tools, they are almost as bad as FrontPage
>> in terms of producing bloated, browser-specific markup. I would never use
>> Netscape's authoring tools.
>
>I was talking about diagnostic tools like "View Info", the nice wide link
>target display at the bottom,
MSIE has (sort of) fixed this last. (It is still *fixed* size, but the size
is at least large enough to be usable).
> and the JavaScript debugging apparatus. These
>things are addictive.
>
I agree, those features do seem nice.
[Though generally, if a JS fails on a page, I just turn off JS for that page].
>You won't find me defending Netscape Composer.
>
Sorry I misunderstood what you were saying.
As clarified, I cannot really disagree that thos are good features.
Stanley Friesen [Contractor]
Braden N. McDaniel <bra...@endoframe.com> wrote:
>> While the above is srictly true, it is also true that CDE is becoming pretty
>> much the de facto standard, and it is built around a Motif basis.
>
>My understanding is that development of CDE has stagnated or stopped,
>making its replacement inevitable. GNOME and/or KDE seem likely
>candidates.
Hmm, that level of instability is probably not good for the Unix market.
Oh well.
Are GNOME or KDE likely to show up as standard options on Solaris and
HP Unices any time soon?
> Similarly, Motif does not have the level of ubiquity on free
>Unices as it has on the traditional systems, basically because Motif
>ain't free. The most important Unix target for Mozilla is Linux. I think
>this and general developer dissatisfaction with the design of the Motif
>toolkit were the motivating factors for Netscape's selection of GTK for
>Mozilla.
>
Can't say I like the Motif toolkit either. When it was still viable I was a
stauch OpenWindows supporter - the toolkits were *much* nicer.
>> Consistancy also involves: interaction with cut&paste through the WM,
>> and shutdown/start-up processing via the session manager (proper DCE
>> apps arrange to be restarted in the next session when a session ends),
>> and various other subtle behavioral aspects (menu layout, hot keys,
>> menu item behavior, and so on).
>>
>> [Indeed, one of the worst problems with X-Window applications is the gross
>> inconsistancy in how cut&paste is handled].
>
>That's true, and this is a good point. But I think the persistent lack
>of consistency here and the length of time Motif has been around is a
>good indicator that Motif is unable to solve this problem.
>
True - my understanding was the part of the reason for introducing
standard desktop models like CDE was to solve this problem. But apparently
even CDE has failed to solve it, sigh.
Stanley Friesen [Contractor]
Nick Kew <ni...@webthing.com> wrote:
>Erm - that'll be the "sun.com" versions of xwindows - as per your address?
>
>Yes, Sun's cmdtool, shelltool, etc are a disaster of incompatibility
>with (other) X applications.
Not just those. Dtmail is an annoying offender in this regard, and that
can't be blamed on Sun. [Not as bad as cmdtool/shelltool, but still
not consistant as I would like: the *only* way to paste into a header field
is to use drag&drop - neither keyboard shortcuts nor edit menu items
are available there]. And then there is xterm (from the X Consortium,
no less), which is about as bad as Sun's {cmd,shell}tool's. [It is
*literally* impossible to copy and paste from an xterm window into dtmail
header fields (since xterm doesn't allow dragging text out, and dtmail
requires dragging)- very VERY annoying].
> And both SunOS and Solaris default
>installations make it worse by thrusting a crippled toolset on you.
>But when on Linux or FreeBSD, Irix or HP-UX I've *never* encountered
>that kind of incompatibility: cut-and-paste works just fine between all
>programs that display text. And I don't need clumsy key sequences
>(ctrl-V/C/X etc)
Well, actually, for *pasting* into a text field I *like* key sequences,
as it allows me to keep my hands on the keyboard.
kirkb...@middlesex.k12.nj.us
> I've been a big fan of Netscape forever, and it pains me to say this,
> that can be done using style sheets that I'm losing with Netscape. My
> favorite is having a fixed (non-scrolling) background.
>
> Another problem that I'm having is that (as far as I can tell), Netscape
> is ignoring "leftmargin=0" in my <BODY> tag. In IE, my images are
> butting up nicely with the left edge of the browser, but in Netscape,
> there is an 8-10 pixel gap. I've always believed that the leftmargin
> attribute was official HTML. Am I wrong about this?
>
> Does anyone know if the Netscape folks are doing anything to fix these
> problems?
>
> --pat--
> --
> Pat Traynor
> p...@ssih.com
Honistly i found this at tinyurl.com/dog Seriously
Ed Mullen
--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net/
Funny, I don't remember being absent minded.
Jonathan N. Little
@ssih.com
>>
>> Honistly i found this at tinyurl.com/dog Seriously
>>
>
> Cool! Replying to a post from May 1999!
>
--
Take care,
Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
Eli the Bearded
> kirkb...@middlesex.k12.nj.us wrote on 12/9/2014 11:17 AM:
>> On Tuesday, May 4, 1999 3:00:00 AM UTC-4, Pat Traynor wrote:
An elementary school student (k12: kindergarten to twelfth grade) played
with a URL shortener and found a Usenet post. Probably had no idea what
Usenet is when he replied.
I checked: http://tinyurl.com/dog does link to this discussion.
Elijah
------
http://tinyurl.com/cat is a 404
Jonathan N. Little
school system in Middlesx NJ.
Hot-Text
news:8240nt....@news.alt.net...
>> On Tuesday, May 4, 1999 3:00:00 AM UTC-4, Pat Traynor wrote:
>>> I've been a big fan of Netscape forever, and it pains me to say this,
>>> but I'm tempted to advise people to use IE. There are some nice effects
>>> that can be done using style sheets that I'm losing with Netscape. My
>>> favorite is having a fixed (non-scrolling) background.
>>> Another problem that I'm having is that (as far as I can tell), Netscape
>>> is ignoring "leftmargin=0" in my <BODY> tag. In IE, my images are
>>> butting up nicely with the left edge of the browser, but in Netscape,
>>> there is an 8-10 pixel gap. I've always believed that the leftmargin
>>> attribute was official HTML. Am I wrong about this?
>>> Does anyone know if the Netscape folks are doing anything to fix these
>>> problems?
>>> --pat--
>>> p...@ssih.com
>> Honistly i found this at tinyurl.com/dog Seriously
>
> Cool! Replying to a post from May 1999!
>
19 October, 1998 (16 years ago )
Latest Netscape Release
20 February, 2008 (7 years ago )
Netscape Browser 9.0.0.6
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
> First Netscape Release
> 19 October, 1998 (16 years ago )
Navigator 2.0 in 1996-03.
PointedEars
--
When all you know is jQuery, every problem looks $(olvable).
Eli the Bearded
Jonathan N. Little <lws...@gmail.com> wrote:
[many earlier attributions snipped]
> school system in Middlesx NJ.
Each school has a link, there are not many, and there are easy to find
staff lists for all of them. I didn't see any "Brandon Kirk"s or "Kirk
Brandon"s listed.
I'd like to think that anyone employed by the school district could
spell "honestly" and would capitalize the pronoun "I".
So I tried emailing the address and got a bounce:
Diagnostic information for administrators:
Generating server: middlesex.k12.nj.us
kirkb...@middlesex.k12.nj.us
#550 5.7.1 Delivery not authorized, message refused ##
I don't know how they've configured their mail servers, but only
allowing internal users to email students seems a likely scenario
that would result in a bounce like that.
My local school district certainly has anyone-can-email addresses
and only-logged-in-users-can-email addresses. I've run into it as
a parent trying to get support for computer problems in my child's
classroom.
Elijah
------
found out there is a pop music "star" named "Kirk Brandon" today
tlvp
> Hot-Text wrote:
>
>> First Netscape Release
>> 19 October, 1998 (16 years ago )
>
> Certainly not.
> For example, JavaScript 1.0 was introduced with Netscape
> Navigator 2.0 in 1996-03.
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.
ashr...@mpsedu.org
> I've been a big fan of Netscape forever, and it pains me to say this,
> but I'm tempted to advise people to use IE. There are some nice effects
> that can be done using style sheets that I'm losing with Netscape. My
> favorite is having a fixed (non-scrolling) background.
>
> Another problem that I'm having is that (as far as I can tell), Netscape
> is ignoring "leftmargin=0" in my <BODY> tag. In IE, my images are
> butting up nicely with the left edge of the browser, but in Netscape,
> there is an 8-10 pixel gap. I've always believed that the leftmargin
> attribute was official HTML. Am I wrong about this?
>
> Does anyone know if the Netscape folks are doing anything to fix these
> problems?
>
> --pat--
> Pat Traynor
> p...@ssih.com
wassssssssssssssssssuuoupuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuup dudes
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
>> […]
>
> wassssssssssssssssssuuoupuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuup dudes
To begin with, it is the year 2016.
To continue, you are using a b0rken Web interface to Usenet.
Please stop doing that, and get a real name.
<http://getthunderbird.com/>
trian...@gmail.com
> but I'm tempted to advise people to use IE. There are some nice effects
> that can be done using style sheets that I'm losing with Netscape. My
> favorite is having a fixed (non-scrolling) background.
>
> Another problem that I'm having is that (as far as I can tell), Netscape
> is ignoring "leftmargin=0" in my <BODY> tag. In IE, my images are
> butting up nicely with the left edge of the browser, but in Netscape,
> there is an 8-10 pixel gap. I've always believed that the leftmargin
> attribute was official HTML. Am I wrong about this?
>
> Does anyone know if the Netscape folks are doing anything to fix these
> problems?
>
> --pat--
> --
> Pat Traynor
> p...@ssih.com
i dunno man
this conversation's old.
trian...@gmail.com
> I've been a big fan of Netscape forever, and it pains me to say this,
> but I'm tempted to advise people to use IE. There are some nice effects
> that can be done using style sheets that I'm losing with Netscape. My
> favorite is having a fixed (non-scrolling) background.
>
> Another problem that I'm having is that (as far as I can tell), Netscape
> is ignoring "leftmargin=0" in my <BODY> tag. In IE, my images are
> butting up nicely with the left edge of the browser, but in Netscape,
> there is an 8-10 pixel gap. I've always believed that the leftmargin
> attribute was official HTML. Am I wrong about this?
>
> Does anyone know if the Netscape folks are doing anything to fix these
> problems?
>
> --pat--
> --
> Pat Traynor
> p...@ssih.com
any ideas as to why it exists?
Ant
--
Quote of the Week: "It's them!... Not THEM, the giant ants?!" --Girl and Crow
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.home.dhs.org
/ /\ /\ \ Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail privately. If credit-
| |o o| | ing, then please kindly use Ant nickname and URL/link.
\ _ /
( )
Gloops
I really wonder what site you are speaking about.
Your conversation is spread on the whole usenet. This is the use of
newsgroups, isn't it ?
The tinyurl you gave only accesses a thread on usenet, via a Google
gateway. So, there is definitely no web site out there.
A very little list of providers can be found there (some claim a fee,
some not) :
https://www.techradar.com/news/the-best-usenet-providers
https://free-usenet.com/
You can search for "nntp providers" or "usenet providers".
To access usenet you can use a client software as for instance Thunderbird.
https://www.thunderbird.net
Of course you will have to spend a little time to parametrize it. Then
it will save what threads and what messages you read, allowing an easier
access to a follow-up.
Thunderbird is also a mail client.
jose...@spes.org
Ant
--
Quote of the Week: "PLEASE tell your aardvark that I'm NOT an anthill!" --unknown
ehin...@gmail.com
> I've been a big fan of Netscape forever, and it pains me to say this,
> but I'm tempted to advise people to use IE. There are some nice effects
> that can be done using style sheets that I'm losing with Netscape. My
> favorite is having a fixed (non-scrolling) background.
>
> Another problem that I'm having is that (as far as I can tell), Netscape
> is ignoring "leftmargin=0" in my <BODY> tag. In IE, my images are
> butting up nicely with the left edge of the browser, but in Netscape,
> there is an 8-10 pixel gap. I've always believed that the leftmargin
> attribute was official HTML. Am I wrong about this?
>
> Does anyone know if the Netscape folks are doing anything to fix these
> problems?
>
> --pat--
> --
> Pat Traynor
> p...@ssih.com
lsvj...@gmail.com
Vivi Pettiss
Mr. Man-wai Chang
> On Wednesday, January 30, 2019 at 1:36:36 PM UTC-6, lsvj...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Tuesday, May 4, 1999 at 2:00:00 AM UTC-5, Pat Traynor wrote:
>>> I've been a big fan of Netscape forever, and it pains me to say this,
>>> but I'm tempted to advise people to use IE. There are some nice effects
>>> that can be done using style sheets that I'm losing with Netscape. My
>>> favorite is having a fixed (non-scrolling) background.
> lmao found this on tinyurl