"Paul H. Pincus" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>At 01:15 PM 11/3/95 -0800, Robert MacKimmie wrote:
>>I hate to be cranky, but the whole concept of the web is universal
>>access by adhering to STANDARDS--html standards for starters.
>>Here is my flammingly pissed-off message for those who are so hip out
>>there that they have to put up sites that "have to use Netscape..."
[snip]
>>NETSCAPE may have 85% of the desktops, just like Microsoft, BUT
>>NETSCAPE IS NOT A STANDARD!!!  Netscape IS NOT ported to all
>>platforms, so those pages that are "Netscape only" are acting in an
>>exclusive, proprietary, non-open standards manner.  Those people are
>>defeating the very paradigm which has evolved us OUT of the dark an
[snip]
>>[snip]Another "Very Different Website" is http://www.joeboxer.com
>>Maybe somebody could visit that site as well and then put up a page
>>describing what they see for the benefit of those who ONLY adhere to
>>agreed upon STANDARDS like HTML 1.0, HTML 2.0 and HTML 3.0 (soon.)

- Netscape 1.1, which is the one many 'in' pages cater for, is ported
to Windows 3.1/3.11, Mac, Unix; Have I missed a platform?
- The standards comitee which created the HTML 3.0 standard
specification has been working for many months now in cooperation with
the Netscape people, and has incorporated the so-called Netscape
'extensions' into the HTML 3.0 standard.  This information has been
published on the web by the standards comitee



>HTML standards are just that - standards for HTML.

>Not necessarily standards for internet or web users.  Perhaps the current
>standards are not high enough for the technologies possible on the internet.

>If you really want to get upset you should check out Sun Microsystems
>HotJava site.  Java applets on the web are the next wave of internet
>technology AND at the moment you can only access them using the HotJava
>browser (which you can download from http://java.sun.com.]  The new version
>of Netscape can also access Java web programs.

>If we stick to HTML then all one will be able to do on the web is read text.

>Java allows you to interact with actual software over the internet, hear
>sounds and view animations WITHOUT having to load viewers and audio players.
So what's the point here? Applications don't hold all code in memory
anyway, so either way they'd have to load code. There is no
significant difference in performance whether you seperate an
application to EXE's LIB' DLL's, or whatever equivalent concepts exist
on other platforms. In fact, the browser DOES load all those viewers.
The concept of having all the viewers as part of the browser is
limiting, becasue you can't have a new kind of document, unless it's
extensible, in which case it is no different than current setup of a
browser which automatically calls other applications to display
certain file types.

Actually the present way allows you to view all the different kinds of
document with old browser, and mix and match the other viewers
according to your prefferences

>For everyone in the museum field creating virtual reality exhibits and
>providing conducted tours with sound, movement and images the same as you
>could using an interactive CD-ROM program is now possible [and more]. You
>can have the cyberspace museum you always wanted. Create a more intimate
>experience for new audiences with your institutions collection and programs
>over the internet.

Java is a nice idea, but certainly the last word on the subject. It is
mostly a programmer's tool. I'm certainly in favor of giving more work
to programmers. But I don't think most museums can afford to employ
proggrammers as well

Uri